:a 

RE 

^^^=  o 

ALLIBRAR 

f  California 

Regional 

Facility 


^WEtlNIVER^ 


1^     m 


vVlOSANCElfjv 


<ri.)3DNvsoi^'^     '^^mmm-i^ 


^<!/0JllV3JO'^ 


A^lllBRARYOc. 
^  1    ir-^  ^ 


,^WEUN(VER^//, 


^lOSANCElfj^ 


"^ajAiNa-^wv 


^OFCALIF0/?4^ 


aofcaiifo%. 


^^Aavaaiii^ 


^UIBRARYi?/^      ^I-IIBRAJYQ^ 


^\it•UNIVERS/A 


^iJ/OJIlVO-jO'^      ^WJllVO-JO^        ^J'JIJONVSOI^       %}13AINn-3WV' 


AS:iOSANCElfj}> 


v^ 


«^^\\E•UNIVER^/^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcinive 
^o5JviaiH^   in  2008  witin  funding  fronir.:/ 
IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


^lOSANCElfj> 
o  "  ^ 


%J13AINa3WV 


^HIBRARY^^ 


<ri13DNVS01^        ^/Sa3AINn3WV 


^.yOJIlV3JO^ 


\ojnv3-jo^ 


m 


^V\tliNIVER% 


^TillONVSOl^       %a3AINrt-3WV 


,^,OFCALIfO/?4^ 


^OF-CAllFOff^ 


>&AavaaiH^ 


^>^UIBRARY<?^ 


^v^llIBRARYGc^ 


^WE•^JNIVER5'/A. 


v^lOSANCElfx> 

o 


://www.arcliive.org/details/demostlienesdemobOOcamb 

^OfCALifO%  .\\\EUNIVER% 


^OfCALIFO/?^ 


en    I 


o<f*  z 


-4   :I2 


A    ~       = 


^lOSANCElfj> 
o 


A 


^\i 


5*  ^ 


^vWSANCElfj> 


^OF-CAIIF' 


I  IV& 


"^AaMiNn-JWv 


-'t/Aavauiiix^' 


^<i/ojnvjjo>'' 


0/?^       ^.0F-CALIF0/?4^ 


15^ 


>- 


L 


R5/4 


v^lOSANCElfr 


%a]AINn-3WV 


IYQ<, 


s, 


DEMOSTHENES    DEMOBILISED. 


^^'"'"J  [Steam 

Viscount  Jellicoe  and  Earl  Haig  being  made  Honorary  Members 

OF   THE  Society,  May   i8th,    1920.     (See  page  94.) 


DEMOSTHENES 
DEMOBILISED 

A     Record    of    Cambridge    Union 
Society    Debates 

February,    1919 — June,    1920 

'By  the 
FOUR    PRESIDENTS 

With  a  Preface  by 

The  Rt.  Hon.  AUSTEN  CHAMBERLAIN,  M.P. 

And  an   Introduction  by 

Dr.   J.  R.  TANNER   (St.  John's) 


Cambridge  : 
W.  HEFFER  AND  SONS  LTD. 

1920 


p/7 

Foreword. 

The  purpose  of  this  book  is  to  give  a  permanent  record  of 
one  of  the  most  interesting  periods  in  the  history  of  the 
Union  Society.  To  the  general  reader  these  pages  will  be 
but  the  dull  record  of  dull  debates.  "Who  cares,"  he  will 
say,  "what  the  Cambridge  Union  thinks  about  anything  ?  " 
Mere  pubhcation  will  be  counted  as  presumption.  Let  us 
forestall  such  criticism  by  agreeing  with  it  ;  but  we  must 
add  that  we  believe  the  presumption  of  youth  to  be  its 
greatest  weakness  and  its  greatest  asset.  This  is  not  a  text- 
book of  pohtics,  and  those  who  expect  instruction  or 
illumination  on  present  problems  will  be  sorely  dis- 
appointed. To  those,  however,  who  have  the  interests  of 
the  Union  at  heart,  we  hope  this  little  book  will  appeal. 
The  Union  debates  supply  for  many  of  us  a  form  of  social 
contract  by  which  we  gladly  suffer  fools  to  teach  them- 
selves to  speak,  if  they,  in  their  turn,  will  suffer  our 
foolishness  with  the  same  measure  of  gladness.  Few  of 
us  who  have  broken  the  silence  will  ever  forget  how  pain- 
fully we  collated  arguments  and  framed  them  in  the  grand 
rhetorical  form  ;  how  anxiously  we  sought  the  president's 
eye  ;  how  fearfully  we  caught  it  ;  how  nervously  we  arose 
to  speak,  forgot  everything  we  had  prepared,  stuttered  some- 
thing visibly  soporific  and  unquestionably  irrelevant, and  sat 
down  with  relief  and  confusion.  Still,  we  had  spoken, 
perhaps  might  never  speak  again,  but  we  had  given  to  the 
debate,  as  it  were,  some  of  our  personality,  and  had  received 
in  exchange  some  degree  of  confidence  for  future  occasions. 
To  all  such,  we  offer  this  record  without  further  apology. 
For  the  sake  of  convenience,  each  of  the  four  Presidents 
has  written  his  own  impression  of  those  debates  over  which 
he  presided,  a  fact  which  may  account  for  any  divergence 
of  political  opinion. 

All  profits  arising  from  the  sale  of  this  book  will  be 
devoted  to  the  Pension  Fund  for  the  Staff  of  the  Society. 

In  conclusion,  something  must  be  said  of  the  general 
and  financial  position  of  the  Society.  From  January  19 19 
to  June  1920,  the  period  under  review,  1,825  i^cw  members 


vi  FOREWORD 

were  enrolled,  a  number  three  times  as  large  as  the  previous 
record  for  the  corresponding  period.  During  these  five 
terms,  an  overdraft  of  ^^4,400  was  converted  into  a  credit 
balance  of  ;^3,200,  due  largely  to  the  popularity  of  the 
debates  and  to  the  generosity  of  past  members,  who 
subscribed  over  ;Ci,8oo  to  the  War  Debt  Fund.  We 
cannot  end  without  expressing  the  debt  of  gratitude  we 
owe  to  the  Treasurer,  Dr.  J.  E.  McTaggart  (Trinity), 
Mr.  B.  G.  Brown  (Trinity),  Librarian,  Mr.  E.  Bullough 
(Gonville  and  Caius),  Steward,  and  to  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Mozley 
(Pembroke),  all  of  whom,  assisted  by  the  untiring  energy  of 
Mr.  Stanley  Brown,  the  Chief  Clerk,  presided  over  the 
destinies  of  the  Society  during  the  difficult  times  of  the 
war. 

We  wish  also  to  tender  our  warmest  thanks  to  two  very 
distinguished  former  officers  of  the  Society:  to  the  Rt.  Hon. 
Austen  Chamberlain,  M.P.  (Trinity),  who  has  so  graciously 
favoured  us  with  an  introduction,  and  to  Dr.  J.  R.  Tanner 
(St.  John's)  for  his  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Society. 
We  feel  that  these  two  contributions  have  entirely  justified 
the  publication  of  this  book. 

W.  L.  M. 

J.  W.  M. 

G.  H.  S. 

D.  M.  R. 


Preface 


BY 


The  Right  Hon.  AUSTEN  CHAMBERLAIN,  M.P. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  Reports  of  Debates  are  at 
best  poor  reading,  and  when  these  Reports  are  necessarily 
reduced  to  a  brief  summary  in  the  third  person,  the  last 
hope  of  tracing  the  personahty  of  the  speaker  and  of 
recovering  something  of  the  effect  which  he  produced  on 
his  audience  disappears  from  the  printed  word.  Here  and 
there  an  orator  survives  in  the  pages  of  Hansard.  Disraeh's 
phihppics  against  Peel  can  still  be  read  with  interest,  and 
Bright 's  lofty  flights  of  eloquence  during  the  Crimean 
War  are  perhaps  even  more  moving  when  read  than 
they  were  to  his  hearers.  For  I  have  heard  it  said  on 
the  authority  of  a  contemporary  that  the  listeners  were 
unable  to  abandon  themselves  to  the  enjoyment  of  the 
orator's  eloquence  from  fear  lest  one  ill-chosen  word  should 
bring  him  crashing  to  the  ground.  "The  Angel  of  Death 
has  been  abroad  throughout  the  land.  You  can  almost 
hear  the  beating  of  his  wings,"  quoted  this  eyewitness, 
"Just  think,"  he  continued,  "if  Bright  had  said  flapping  ! 
We  were  so  strained  that  we  should  have  burst  into  half 
hysterical  laughter."  But  be  this  as  it  may,  who  can  now 
read  Gladstone's  speeches  with  pleasure  ?  Who  can 
trace  in  the  three  volumes  of  the  Midlothian  Campaign  or 
in  the  countless  columns  of  Hansard  the  ineluctable  charm, 
the  infinite  variety,  the  inspiration,  the  passion,  the  grim, 
sardonic  humour  which  dominated  the  House  of  Commons 
and  swept  the  country  time  and  again  ?  How  can  the 
printed  word  recall  the  face,  the  figure,  the  gesture,  the 
voice,  each  changing  with  the  changing  mood  of  the 
speaker — how  reproduce  the  electrical  atmosphere,  the 
fierce  sympathies  and  still  fiercer  antagonisms  surging 
among  the  audience  and  acting  and  reacting  on  speaker 
and  listeners  alike  ?  Memory  may  do  something,  but  the 
orator,  like  the  actor,  must  be  content  to  leave  a  memory 
only.     His  art  dies  with  him. 

If  this  be  true  of  even  the  fullest  reports  and  of  the 
greatest  speeches,  it  must  be  even  more  true  of  such  short 
records  as  are  included  in  tiiis  volume.     Yet  old  members 


viii  PREFACE 

of  the  Union  will  welcome  it  for  the  sake  of  the  vitality 
which  it  shows  in  a  Society  to  which  many  of  us  owe  a 
great  debt,  and  for  the  evidence  which  it  affords  of  the 
vigorous  rebirth  of  the  Society  after  the  gloomy  solitude 
of  war. 

And  to  men  engaged  in  public  affairs  or  concerned  to 
measure  intelligently  the  formation  of  opinion  in  the 
coming  generation,  the  book  has  another  and  a  vital 
interest.  Here  are  gathered  brief  records  of  the  thoughts 
and  aspirations  of  Cambridge  men  of  to-day,  but  not,  as 
normally,  of  men  whose  only  experience  is  drawn  from 
schools  and  colleges,  and  for  whom  the  world  is  but  just 
opening.  Here  we  have  a  record  of  thought  bred  or 
ripened  amidst  the  perils  of  the  North  Sea,  in  the  trenches 
of  France  and  Flanders  or  under  Eastern  skies.  The 
speakers  may  be  for  the  most  part  little  older  than  their 
predecessors,  but  they  have  an  experience  not  to  be 
measured  by  years,  which  gives  a  value  to  this  record  of  a 
year's  debates  to  which  no  other  period  in  the  Society's 
history  could  lay  claim. 

What  does  this  young  generation  which  has  fought  and 
suffered,  which  has  at  least  come  to  manhood  in  the  dread 
years  of  war,  think  of  our  old  problems  and  of  the  struggles 
which  before  the  war  were  so  engrossing  to  us  ?  How  do 
they  regard  the  problems  of  to-day,  and,  still  more,  the 
problems  of  to-morrow  ?  What  hope  have  they  of  the 
world  ?     What  promise  do  they  unfold  to  it  ? 

The  reader  who  will  take  the  trouble  to  run  through 
these  pages  will  find  the  answers  to  these  questions. 
Heaven  forbid  that  youth  should  always  count  the  cost 
of  every  new  adventure,  or  even  concern  itself  too  nicely 
with  the  practical  difficulties  of  ambitious  schemes  of 
reformation.  We  all  grow  conservative  with  age — most  of 
all,  the  man  who  is  most  consistent  with  himself.  Youth 
is  the  time  for  high  hopes  and  soaring  ambitions,  for  clear- 
cut  distinctions  and  holy  abhorrence  of  compromise.  Time 
will  bring  only  too  soon  the  recognition  of  the  vast  gulf 
that  lies  between  theory  and  practice,  the  spirit  of  caution 
and  the  wise  opportunism  which  are  needed  in  the  govern- 
ment of  men.  But  to  me,  hastily  turning  over  these  pages, 
there  seem  to  pervade  them  a  greater  sobriety  of  judgment, 
and  a  more  serious  appreciation  of  the  importance  of  the 
problems  attacked  than  was  common  to  my  own  untried 
generation.     And  as  I  ponder  these  debates  and  attempt 


PREFACE  ix 

to  measure  the  forces  at  work  in  the  Young  England  of 
to-day  I  seem  to  find  a  fresh  assurance  of  the  strength  of 
our  pohtical  institutions  and  a  new  guarantee  of  the 
ordered  progress  of  our  land. 


AUSTEN   CHAMBERLAIN. 


Treasury  Chambers, 
Whitehall. 

2gth  September,  ig:o. 


Introduction 


J.  R.  TANNER,  Litt.D.  (St.  John's). 

As  I  was  Treasurer  of  the  Union  for  the  twelve  years  before 
the  war,  the  Editors  of  this  volume  have  invited  me  to 
write  a  short  sketch  of  the  Society's  hundred  years  of 
history,  and  to  express  any  views  which  I  may  entertain 
concerning  the  changes  effected  in  its  external  relations 
and  inner  spirit  by  the  enormous  experience  through 
which  the  younger  generation  of  Cambridge  men  has 
lately  passed. 

The  Society  was  founded  by  the  union  of  three  other 
societies  in  1 8i  5,  and  but  for  the  war  there  would  have  been 
centenary  celebrations.  These  were  to  include  an  extension 
of  premises  in  Round  Church  Street,  where  suitable 
property  had  been  already  acquired.  The  scheme  provided 
improved  accommodation  for  the  commissariat,  to  replace 
the  present  makeshift  Luncheon  and  Dining  Room — 
obtained  by  the  conversion  of  the  old  Writing  Room  to 
other  uses — and  the  inconvenient  Kitchen,  acquired  by  the 
appropriation  of  certain  mysterious  spaces  in  the  roof 
which  once  did  duty  as  a  smoking  room.  The  war  had  the 
effect  of  saddling  the  Society  with  a  debt  equal  to  the  cost 
of  the  extension,  but  without  any  buildings  to  shew  for  it, 
although  by  unexpected  good  fortune  the  Society's 
remarkable  recovery  after  the  war  has  extinguished  this 
liability  and  has  once  more  replaced  Union  finances  upon 
a  sound  footing. 

The  three  distinguished  men  who  carried  through  the 
amalgamation  of  1815  were  Henry  Bickersteth,  of  Caius, 
afterwards  Lord  Langdale,  who  was  Senior  Wrangler  and 
first  Smith's  Prizeman  in  1808,  and  in  1836  became  Master 
of  the  Rolls  ;  Sir  Edward  Hall  Alderson,  also  of  Caius,  who 
was  Senior  Wrangler,  first  Smith's  Prizeman,  and  first 
Chancellor's  Medallist  in  1809,  and  became  in  1830  a  Judge 
of  the  Court  of  Common  Pleas,  and  in  1834  a  Baron  of  the 
Exchequer  ;  and  Sir  Jonathan  Frederick  Pollock,  of 
Trinity,  Senior  Wrangler  and  first  Smith's  Prizeman  in 
1806,  and  Chief  Baron  of  the  Exchequer  1844-66.  Thus 
the  Union  owes  everything  to  lawyer-mathematicians. 


INTRODUCTION  xi 

The  first  debate  was  held  on  Monday,  February  20, 
1 81 5,  in  what  Lord  Houghton  afterwards  described  as 
"a  low,  ill-ventilated,  ill-ht  gallery  at  the  back  of  the  Red 
Lion  Inn  [in  Petty  Cury] — cavernous,  tavernous — some- 
thing between  a  commercial  room  and  a  district  branch 
meeting  house."  This  indifferent  accommodation  served 
until  about  1832,  when  the  Society  moved  into  a  building 
specially  erected  for  it,  behind  what  used  to  be  the  Hoop 
Hotel.  This  building  is  now  in  the  occupation  of  the 
A.D.C.  In  1850  there  was  another  move — to  a  "dingy  old 
room  in  Green  Street,"  formerly  a  Wesleyan  Chapel— 
and  here  the  debates  were  carried  on  until  the  opening  of 
the  older  part  of  the  present  buildings  behind  the  Round 
Church  on  October  30,  1866.  The  latest  enlargement, 
which  included  a  new  Library,  Drawing  Room,  and  Smok- 
ing Room,  was  opened  on  February  24,   1886. 

The  first  President  of  the  Society  was  Edward  John 
Gambler,  of  Trinity,  afterwards  Fellow  ;  he  was  knighted 
in  1834,  and  was  Chief  Justice  of  Madras  1842-9,  The 
second  was  Constantine  Henry  Phipps,  Lord  Normanby, 
of  Trinity,  the  eldest  son  of  the  Earl  of  Mulgrave  ;  he  was 
Lord  Privy  Seal  under  Lord  Melbourne,  and  afterwards 
Lord  Lieutenant  of  Ireland,  and  was  created  first  Marquis 
of  Normanby  in  1838.  The  third  was  the  Hon.  Charles 
John  Shore,  of  Trinity,  the  eldest  son  of  the  first  Lord 
Teignmouth  ;  he  represented  Marylebone  in  the  House  of 
Commons  from  1 838  to  1 841 .  For  the  first  four  years  of  the 
Society's  existence  the  officers  all  came  either  from  Trinity 
or  St.  John's,  but  in  October,  1 8 1 9,  Sidney  Sussex  succeeded 
in  capturing  an  office,  and  from  that  time  onward  they 
were  shared  in  no  unequal  proportion  to  the  size  of  the 
foundations.  Macaulay  was  Secretary  in  the  Easter  Term 
of  1820,  and  Treasurer  in  the  Lent  Term  of  1823,  but  he 
was  never  President.  Lord  L^'tton  said  of  his  speech  on 
the  French  Revolution  that  it  was  "  the  greatest  display 
of  eloquence  "  which  he  witnessed  at  the  Union.  "  It  still 
lingers  in  my  recollection,"  he  wrote,  "  as  the  most  heart- 
stirring  efi"ort  of  that  true  oratory  which  seizes  hold  of  the 
passions,  transports  you  from  yourself,  and  identifies  you 
with  the  very  life  of  the  orator,  that  it  has  ever  been  my 
lot  to  hear,  saving,  perhaps,  a  speech  delivered  by  Mr. 
O'Connell  to  an  immense  crowd  in  the  open  air.  Macaulay, 
in  point  of  passion,  power,  and  effect,  never  equalled  that 
speech  in  his  best  days  in  the  House  of  Commons."     Lord 


xii  INTRODUCTION 

Lytton  himself,  as  E.  G.  L.  Bulwer,  of  Trinity  Hall,  was 
Secretary  in  the  Easter  Term,  1824,  and  Treasurer  in  the 
following  Michaelmas  Term.  Among  earlier  Presidents 
were  Alexander  Cockburn,  of  Trinity  Hall,  who  presided 
over  the  Tichborne  Trial  as  Lord  Chief  Justice  of  England  ; 
Benjamin  Hall  Kennedy,  of  St.  John's,  the  famous  Head 
Master  of  Shrewsbury,  and  afterwards  Regius  Professor 
of  Greek  ^  Richard  Chenevix  Trench,  of  Trinity,  after- 
wards Archbishop  of  Dublin  ;  Henry  Alford,  of  Trinity, 
Dean  of  Canterbury  1857-71  ;  and  Charles  John  Ellicott, 
of  St.  John's,  afterwards  Bishop  of  Gloucester  and  Bristol. 

The  present  volume  begins  with  the  Suggestion  Book. 
This  institution  is  not,  as  has  been  supposed,  co-eval  with 
the  foundation  of  the  Society,  but  begins  "  about  the 
Easter  Term,  1856."  It  is  not  without  interest  to  observe 
that  on  the  first  page  of  the  first  volume  the  note  is  struck, 
which  has  reverberated  for  more  than  half-a-century.  A 
member  complains  :  "  The  iron  railing  to  the  gallery  is  very 
hard  ;  if  it  were  padded  it  would  serve  instead  of  sofas." 
The  Vice-President  replies  :  "It  is  suggested  that  the 
honourable  member's  coat  should  be  padded  instead." 
And  this  frivolity  dates  back  to  the  dignified  days  of  the 
Crimean   War  ! 

When  the  Society's  debates  came  to  an  end  during  the 
war  it  was  commonly  supposed  that  this  was  the  first 
interruption  in  recorded  history.  It  was,  however,  the 
case  that  from  181 7  to  1821  debates  were  prohibited  by 
the  Vice-Chancellor,  mainly  on  the  ground  that  they  inter- 
fered with  reading.  There  was  also  some  trouble  over  the 
introduction  of  politics,  and  when  permission  was  given 
for  debates  to  be  resumed  it  was  subject  to  the  condition 
that  all  political  questions  later  than  1800  should  be 
excluded.  This  limitation  produced  the  state  of  things 
described  by  Lord  Houghton  from  his  earlier  memories  : 
"We  got  fervent  upon  the  character  of  Lord  North,  and 
fierce  upon  the  poHcy  of  Cardinal  RicheHeu."  The  Society 
was,  however,  accustomed  to  run  it  rather  fine.  It  decided 
that  "the  principles  of  the  French  Revolution  were  deserv- 
ing of  approbation,"  and  that  "the  conduct  of  Mr.  Pitt, 
as  far  as  the  year  1800,  was  far  more  deserving  of  the 
approbation  of  posterity  than  that  of  Mr.  Fox."  There 
were  also  ways  of  getting  round  the  prohibition,  for  a  good 
deal  of  nineteenth  century  declamation  could  be  introduced 
into  a  debate  on  a  motion  that  "the  political  conduct  of 


INTRODUCTION  xiii 

Oliver  Cromwell  was  beneficial  to  the  country"  ;  and 
Lord  Houghton  used  to  explain  how  the  question  of 
women's  suffrage  was  once  smuggled  into  the  House  under 
cover  of  an  innocent  discussion  of  "The  Comparative 
Merits  of  Adam  and  Eve." 

After  reading  the  abstracts  of  post  war  debates  printed 
below,  the  question  inevitably  arises  how  far  and  in  what 
direction  their  character  has  changed.  We  must  take  as 
our  "datum  line,"  if  so  topical  a  term  may  be  permitted, 
the  famous  debate  at  Oxford  on  November  26,  1829,  upon 
the  motion  "That  Shelley  was  a  greater  poet  than  Byron." 
The  deputation  from  Cambridge  consisted  of  Lord 
Houghton,  then  Richard  Monckton  Milnes,  Thomas  Sunder- 
land, and  Arthur  Hallam,  the  friend  of  Tennyson.  The 
supporters  of  Shelley  drove  in  a  postchaise  to  Oxford, 
where  the}'  were  entertained  b}^  Milnes  Gaskell,  by  Sir 
Francis  Doyle,  afterwards  Professor  of  Poetry  at  Oxford, 
and  "  by  a  young  student  of  the  name  of  Gladstone."  One 
of  the  Oxford  speakers  was  Cardinal  Manning,  from  whom 
comes  the  only  account  of  the  debate  we  possess.  The 
Oxford  speakers  were,  "precise,  orderly, and  morbidly  afraid 
of  excess  in  word  or  manner.  The  Cambridge  oratory 
came  in  like  a  flood  into  a  mill-pond.  Both  Monckton 
Milnes  and  Arthur  Hallam  took  us  aback  by  the  boldness 
and  freedom  of  their  manner  ;  but  I  remember  the  effect 
of  Sunderland's  declamation  and  action  to  this  day.  It 
had  never  been  seen  or  heard  before  among  us  ;  we 
cowered  like  birds  and  ran  like  sheep."  The  oratory  that 
came  like  a  flood  into  a  mill-pond  and  depended  upon 
declamation  and  action  must  have  been  a  survival  of  the 
tradition  of  Macaulay,  and  it  was  soon  to  become  out  of 
date.  The  middle  period  of  the  century,  which  produced 
presidents  like  Professor  Hort,  Professor  Henry  Sidgwick, 
and  Sir  John  Gorst,  is  not  likely  to  have  depended  on 
declamation,  although  Maitland,  who  belonged  to  a  later 
decade,  was  not  only  a  brilliant  and  witty  speaker,  but 
could  become  on  occasion  a  most  moving  orator.  Nor  do 
Sir  Charles  Dilke,  Sir  William  Harcourt,  Professor 
Fawcett,  or  Mr.  Justice  Stephen  suggest  appeals  to  the 
emotions.  The  son  of  the  last  named,  J.  K.  Stephen  of 
King's,  who  occupied  a  unique  position  in  my  own  time, 
was  both  brilliant  and  profound,  but  his  effectiveness 
depended  little  upon  action,  and  still  less  upon  declama- 
tion.    The    Union   tradition   of  the   eighties  was   one  'of 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

solidity  and  soberness,  and  it  is  said  that  blue-books  were 
introduced  in  debate.  A  proposer  who  incurred  damaging 
criticism,  did  not  invent  facts  for  his  speech  in  reply,  or 
ride  off  in  a  cloud  of  amusing  irrelevances,  but  repaired 
to  the  Librar}',  and  dug  out  fresh  material. 

It  has  been  said  that  with  the  new  century  speakers 
displayed  more  intellectual  agility,  but  were  less  careful  and 
solidly  argumentative  ;  that  the  note  of  cynicism  was  more 
often  heard  ;  that  the  House,  eager  for  amusement,  was 
more  tolerant  than  heretofore  of  mere  flippancy.  Critics 
nurtured  in  the  older  tradition  complained  that  the  debates 
were  getting  frothy.  I  think  that,  there  may  have  been 
something  in  these  criticisms  in  so  far  as  they  applied  to 
the  general  tone,  but  I  am  convinced  that  the  standard  of 
the  best  Union  speaking  was  well  maintained.  It  may  be 
that  members  who  in  an  earlier  generation  would  have  been 
content  to  be  merely  dull,  now  strove  unsuccessfully  to  be 
funny,  and  that  clever  members  were  betrayed  into 
flippancies  and  insincerities  ;  but  I  have  heard  speeches 
quite  as  able,  as  well-informed,  and  as  brilliantly  argued 
in  the  last  days  before  the  war,  as  any  that  belong  to  the 
close  of  the  Victorian  age.  A  sound  tradition  flourished, 
in  the  main  unimpaired,  and  moulded  into  the  old  attrac- 
tive form  both  the  thought  and  the  expression  of  the 
ablest  men. 

The  abstract  of  speeches  printed  below  suggest  on  the 
one  hand  that  the  Union  tradition  has  survived  the  war, 
and  on  the  other  that  the  experience  of  realities  gained 
in  the  war  has  brought  about  a  revival  of  ancient  virtues. 
There  has  been  no  reversion  to  the  period  of  declamatory 
gesticulation,  but  sincerity,  sobriety,  and  sohd  argument 
have,  I  think,  re-estabHshed  their  old  position  in  Union 
debates.  A  real  desire  to  get  to  the  heart  of  things  has 
expelled  the  ambition  to  make  out  a  plausible  case. 
Flippancy  and  dullness  will  never  be  entirely  banished 
from  public  speaking,  but  they  are  ahen  to  the  general 
tone  of  the  House.  The  Union  has  always  been  tolerant 
to  individuals,  and  especially  to  new  speakers,  but  it  can 
exercise  a  gentle  and  beneficent  discipline,  or  it  would  not 
continue  to  be  the  great  school  of  speaking  that  it  is.  We 
are  still  gloomily  reckoning  up  the  losses  of  the  war,  but 
the  appearance  in  Cambridge  of  Demosthenes  Demobilised 
may  be  counted  one  of  its  sohd  gains. 

The  appreciations  of  individual  speakers  which  appear 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

below  are  written  for  encouragement,  and  the  note  of 
sustained  eulogy  which  runs  through  them  is  itself  the 
result  of  a  tradition.  At  one  time  the  publication  of  any 
report  of  the  debates  or  criticism  of  the  speakers  was  a 
breach  of  the  privileges  of  the  House,  and  the  member 
supplying  them  was  liable  to  a  fine.  But  the  appearance  of 
a  regular  Universit}'  journal — The  Cambridge  Review — in 
1 879  eventualh'  led  to  a  relaxation  of  the  rule,  and  criticisms 
of  the  speakers  began  to  appear.  As  there  was  still  some 
uncertainty  about  the  attitude  of  the  Union  authorities, 
the  Editors  appear  to  have  adopted  a  policy  of  judicious 
lubrication,  and  the  standard,  once  set,  was  difficult  to 
depart  from.  The  same  line  was  followed  by  other  journals, 
and  one  appreciation  of  a  speaker  who  varied  his  dullness 
with  fatuous  jesting,  ran  (if  memory  serves)  as  follows  : 
"  The  profound  and  subtle  logic  of  the  honourable  member's 
argument  was  from  time  to  time  enlivened  by  brilliant 
flashes  of  wat."  The  tradition  still  holds,  and  no  one  will 
quarrel  with  that  kindness  of  heart  and  desire  to  encourage 
merit  which  make  a  departure  from  it  impossible.  Let  us 
not  quench  the  smoking  flax  ! 

An  entr}'  in  the  Union  records  links  up  the  present 
enterprise  with  the  Society's  earliest  da^^s.  On  Monday, 
March  24,  181 7,  "  Mr.  Whewell,  of  Trinity,"  opened  his 
first  debate  on  the  question,  "  Is  the  increased  attention 
which  has  been  paid  to  our  Army  likely  to  have  a  good 
effect  upon  society  ?  "  The  Union  of  that  day  thought 
not.  Perhaps  Demosthenes  Demobilised  may  take  a 
different  view. 

J.  R.  TANNER. 

St    John's  College, 
I  October,  ig20. 


SUMMARY    OF   DEBATES. 


Date. 

II  Mar. 

1919 

2  Dec. 

1919 

9  Mar. 

1920 

8  June 

1920 

II  Feb. 

1919 

25  Feb. 

1919 

18  Nov. 

1919 

17  Feb. 

1920 

29  April 

1919 

I  June 

1920 

21  Oct. 

1919 

25  Nov. 

1919 

20  Jan. 

1920 

27  April 

,  1920 

II  May 

1920 

6  May 

1919 

13  May 

1919 

27  Jan. 

1920 

3  June 

1919 

10  Feb. 

1920 

4  Feb. 

1919 

4  Mar. 

1919 

20  May 

1919 

14  Oct. 

1919 

3  Feb. 

1920 

24  Feb. 

1920 

25  May 

1920 

The  Government. 

Subject.  For.  Against.  Page 

Confidence  in  Coalition  Govern- 
ment           ...        -         -     121         83         6 

Confidence  in  Coalition  Govern- 
ment           -         .        -        -        -     205       141       43 

Confidence  in  Coalition  Govern- 
ment           .         -         .        -        .     178       196       71 

Appeal  to  Electorate     -        -        -     129       135       92 


Empire,  Army,  Navy. 

Extension  of  British  Empire  -       51 

Supreme    British    Navy    as    Best 

Guarantee  of  Universal  Peace       91 
Reduction  in  Expenditure  on  Arma- 
ments .         -        .        -        . 
Compulsory  Military  Training 
Imperial  Federation        .         -         - 
Dominion  Home  Rule  for  India 

Foreign  Politics. 

League  of  Nations  .         -         - 

Intervention  in  Russia 
America's    Action    Towards    Peace 
Treaty        ....         - 
Friendly  Relations  with  Germany 
Government's  Foreign  Policy 
Hang  the  Kaiser     .        -        -        . 

Ireland. 

Condemn  Government's  Inaction     - 
Government's  Irish  Proposals 

Liberalism. 

Return  to  Principles  of  Liberalism 
Pre-War  Liberal  Policy 

Labour  Questions. 

Self-governing  Guilds    -         -        -  80 
Nationalisation  of  Mines  and  Rail- 
ways              41 

Whitley  Report       -         -        -        -  126 
Tendencies  of  Labour  are  Dangerous  242 

Nationalisation  of  Mines        -        -  105 

Labour  Government         -        -         -  265 

Co-Partnership                  -        -         -  92 


74 


214 

178 

38 

47 

114 

62 

89 

59 

7 

82 

83 

90 

723 

280 

26 

132 

218 

41 

117 

229 

52 

122 

75 

79 

87 

"5 

85 

79 

209 

9 

94 

58 

II 

197 

131 

54 

"5 

240 

18 

441 

316 

59 

43 


74 

b 

88 

14 

190 

23 

148 

57 

651 

64 

51 

88 

xvu 


XV  111 


SUMMARY  OF  DEBATES 


Various  Political  Subjects. 


Date.  Subject. 

28  Oct.     1919  Prohibition        ... 

4  Nov.    1919  Party  System 

4  May     1920  Freedom  of  Speech 

II  Nov.    1919  Capital  Levy 

27  May     1919  Reform  of  Divorce  Laws 


For.  Against.  Page 
182         205         31 

137         155         33 

97  84         81 

123         135         ^5 
M5  38         16 


Academic  Subjects. 

18  Feb.     1919       A  Utilitarian  University 
2  Mar.    1920       The  Modern  Novel  -        .        . 

18  May    1920       Admission  of  Women  to  University 


46 

102 

6 

178 

123 

68 

365 

266 

86 

THE    SUGGESTION    BOOK. 

This  is  a  great  institution  in  the  Society.  Its  chief 
function  is  to  take  the  place  of  question-time  at  debates  ; 
its  chief  use  is  to  provide  an  opportunity  for  members 
who  desire  to  be  facetious,  or  who  have  a  brain-wave,  or 
nurse  a  grievance  ;  its  chief  result  is  to  exasperate 
an  already  over-worked  ( ? )  Vice-President,  and  to 
interest  visitors  to  the  Society  who  disport  themselves  so 
graciously  as  to  be  blind  to  some  of  the  shortcomings  in 
humour,  and  amused  where  traces  of  it  exist. 

The  following  are  a  few  extracts  at  random  from 
recent  pages.  The  replies  are  written  by  the  Vice- 
President. 

Suggestion.     That  less  rot  be  written  in  this  book. 

Reply.  The  Vice-President  thanks  the  hon.  member 
for  his  sympathy,  and  notes  that  "The}^  ne'er  pardon  who 
have  done  the  wrons:." 


Suggestion.     That    the    date-calendar    in    the    Writing 
Room  be  either  (i)  occasionally  corrected,  or  (2)  removed. 

Reply.     The  Vice-President  will  take  the  first  alterna- 
tive as  his  ideal. 


Suggestion.  That  the  present  Vice-President,  in  taking 
leave  of  this  book,  be  less  lugubrious  than  the  last. 

Reply.  And  more  accurate  than  the  hon.  member. 
The  last  Vice-President  was  almost  jocund,  and,  even  if  he 
were  not,  the  retiring  \'ice-President  is  entitled  to  the 
sweet  sorrow  of  parting. 


Suggestion.  That  the  Vice-President  paint  the  lil}'" 
of  his  perfect  speech  overleaf  by  praN'ing  nightly  that 
Heaven  may  ever  spare  this  House  the  chatter  of  women 
and  all  such  encroachment  in  spheres  where,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  they  are  not  intended  to  be,  however  sweet, 
lovely  and  adorable  we  find  them  in  our  homes. 


2  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Reply.     The  Vice-President  approves  the  lofty  senti 
ment,  and  quotes  : — 

"  If  stars  descended  to  earth's  shore, 
How  could  they  so  our  wonder  move  ? 
How  still  could  shine  upon  the  floor 
Girton  all  glorious  above  ?  " 

[The  question  of  the  admission  of  women  to  the  floor 
of  the  House  for  debates  had  been  raised.  They  are 
allowed  to  be  present  as  Visitors  in  the  Gallery.] 

[A  clerical  error  produced  the  following.] 

Suggestion.  That,  in  view  of  the  present  shortage  of 
days  in  the  year,  the  Society  should  discontinue  the 
practice  of  holding  Private  Business  Meetings  on  the 
30th  February. 

Reply.  It  is  now  seven  years  since  the  30th  of 
February  appeared  in  the  Calendar  of  the  House.  This 
is  apparently  a  septennial  event,  or  some  new  kind  of 
Leap  year.  But  the  hon.  member  need  not  fear  that 
Pope  Gregory  XIII.  will  turn  in  his  grave.  It  has  been 
decided  to  hold  the  Private  Business  Meeting  on  Monday, 
ist  March. 

Suggestion.  That  meals  should  be  allowed  to  be  put 
down. 

Reply.  The  Vice-President  hopes  that  they  are.  It 
would  be  a  pity  for  the  converse  to  take  place.  But  with 
regard  to  the  question  of  credit,  this  has  been  decided  to 
be  impracticable. 

^  ^  ^ 

Suggestion.  That  the  various  clocks  in  the  Society's 
rooms  be  made  synchronous. 

Reply.  The  clocks,  like  the  members  of  the  Society, 
being  of  different  ages,  go  at  various  speeds. 

*  »  * 

Suggestion.  That  the  Vice-President  reply  to  some  of 
these  suggestions,  ere. 

Reply.  Noted.  If  hon.  members  will  cease  to  play 
the  part  of  a  Sphinx  proposing  roadside  riddles,  the  Vice- 
President,  a  dull  dog  withal;  will  require  less  time  to 
excogitate  his  replies. 


THE    SUGGESTION    BOOK  3 

At  the  end  of  each  term  the  retiring  Vice-President 
writes  some  remark  of  farewell  to  his  contributors  and 
correspondents.  One  such  was  done  in  the  following  way. 
In  the  suggestion  column  the  Vice-President  wrote  : — 

"Get  you  gone  !  Give  way  to  honester  men,"  and 
signed  it  O.  Cromwell,  Sidney  Sussex. 

The  Vice-President  wrote  underneath  :  "The  Vice- 
President  leaves  the  answering  of  this  suggestion  to  the 
discretion  of  his  successor.     Farewell." 


Lent   Term,    1919. 

When  the  Armistice  was  signed  to  the  accompaniment 
of  appropriate  HveUness  in  Cambridge,  no  one  could  have 
imagined  that,  within  a  few  months,  the  University  would 
have  expelled  its  military  invaders  and  once  more  been 
thronged  with  its  normal  population.  Yet  the  Lent  Term, 
19 19,  saw  unexpected  numbers  back  in  residence.  All  the 
old  institutions  began  to  stir  restlessly  and  to  awake  from 
their  enforced  sleep.  The  Union,  which,  since  the  beginning 
of  19 1 6,  had  been  kept  alive,  and  little  more,  by  the  untiring 
efforts  of  a  provisional  committee  of  ex-presidents  in 
residence,  soon  began  to  look  forward  to  the  time  when  the 
debates,  always  a  central  feature  of  the  Society,  should  be 
resumed.  The  difficulties  of  restarting  were  considerable. 
The  old  line  of  tradition  was  almost  completely  broken. 
Very  few  who  knew  the  practice  and  procedure  of  Union 
debates  were  available  in  residence.  However,  feeling  that 
a  resumption  of  debates  would  be  welcomed,  the  Rev. 
J.  K.  Mozley  (ex-President,  Pembroke),  who  has  long 
been  one  of  the  mainstays  of  the  Society,  made  a  start, 
after  numerous  disappointments,  with  a  discussion  on  the 
none  too  promising  subject  of  Guild  Socialism. 

Though  few  knew  clearly  what  the  motion  meant,  when 
once  the  ice  was  broken  the  debate  went  well,  and  for  the 
rest  of  the  term  there  was  no  difficulty  in  finding  speakers 
anxious  to  voice  their  opinions.  The  attendance  through- 
out was  markedly  good,  and  for  many  months  the  Union 
provided  one  of  the  few  arenas  in  the  country  in  which  it 
was  possible  to  discuss  matters  of  public  interest  in  an 
open  and  untrammelled  manner.  Writing  at  this  date  it  is 
somewhat  difficult  to  recall  the  excitement  and  even 
indignation  with  which  any  but  the  most  orthodox  views 
were  greeted.  The  Paris  Conference  was  pictured  as 
waiting  expectantly  for  news  to  be  flashed  across  the  wires 
that  the  Cambridge  Union  had  refused  to  support  the 
Prime  Minister  on  some  term  of  the  Peace  Settlement. 
However  flattering  such  an  estimate  of  the  importance  of 
the  Society's  proceedings  might  be — and  it  will  be  no  breach 
of  confidence  for  us  to  say  that  at  least  on  one  occasion 
the  Society  was  approached  by  a  certain  party  in  one  of  the 
smaller  Allied  Powers  for  an  expression  of  opinion — it  did 


UNION   DEBATE,    FEBRUARY    1919  5 

not  simplify  the  task  of  choosing  a  middle  line  between 
motions  which  were  merely  dull  and  those  which  were 
provocative. 

No  detailed  account  of  the  first  term's  debates  will  be 
given  here  owing  to  the  restrictions  of  space.  A  list  of  the 
motions,  however,  with  the  results  of  the  division,  may 
be  of  interest  as  showing  the  feelings  of  that  section  of 
the  University  which  habitually  attended.  When  it  is 
remembered  that  the  bulk  of  those  voting  had  only  just 
been  demobilised  from  the  Services,  some  of  the  results 
will  appear  sufficiently  striking.  During  this  term  the 
affairs  of  the  Society  were  managed  as  before  by  the 
Provisional  Committee,  while  the  debates  were  presided 
over  by  a  nominated  chairman.  At  the  conclusion,  the 
usual  election  of  officers  and  committee  was  resumed  after 
having  been  in  abeyance  for  over  three  years. 

Provisional  Committee. 

Chairman:  Rev.  J.  K.  Mozley,  B.D.  (Pembroke) 
Treasurer:  Mr.  J.  E.  McTaggart,  Litt.D.  (Trinity) 
Librarian :  Mr.  B.  G.  Brown,  M.A.  (Trinity) 
Steward :  Mr.  E.  Bullough,  M.A.  (Gonville  and  Caius) 
Chairman  of  Debates  :   Mr.  W.  L.  McNair  (Ex-Secretary, 

Gonville  and  Caius) 

List  of  Motions  for  Debate  and  Results. 

February  4th,  1919  :  '^That  the  menaced  liberty  of 
England  must  be  secured  by  Self-Governing  Guilds  within 
the  Stated' 

Ayes — Rev.  R.  M.  Pattison-Muir  (ex-President,  Gon- 
ville and  Caius). 

Noes— Mr.  Hugh  Dalton  (King's),  Mr.  H.  B.  Davies 
(Pembroke). 

Division  : — Ayes,  80  ;  Noes,  43.  Motion  won  by  37 
votes. 

February  i  ith  :  ''That  this  House  would  deprecate  any 
material  extension  of  the  British  Empire." 

Ayes— Mr.  G.  F.  Johnson  (King's),  Mr.  C.  D.  B.  Ellis 
(King's). 

Noes— Mr.  L.  B.  Charles  (Trinity),  Mr.  E.  Herbert 
(Trinity). 

Division: — Ayes,  74;  Noes,  51.  Motion  won  by  23 
votes. 


6  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

February  i8th  :  ^'That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House 
it  would  be  a  disaster  if  the  University  were  ever  to  become 
utilitarian  in  its  objects.^' 

Ayes— Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's),  Mr.  S.  C. 
Roberts  (ex-Librarian,  Pembroke). 

Noes — Mr.  N.  G.  Dunning  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  W.  F. 
Reddaway  (King's,  Censor  of  Fitzwilliam  Hall). 

Division  : — Ayes,  102  ;  Noes,  46.  Motion  won  by 
56  votes. 

February  25th  :  '^That  in  the  opinion  of  this  House  a 
suprejne  British  Navy  is  the  best  guarantee  of  Universal 
Peace." 

^^^5_Lieut.  D.  T.  C.  Field,  R.N.  (Emmanuel),  Mr. 
D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 

A;^o^5— Mr.  I.  David  (St.  John's),  Mr.  A.  Schofield 
(Gonville  and  Caius). 

Division  : — Ayes,  91  ;  Noes,  loi.  Motion  lost  by 
10  votes. 

March  4th:  "That  this  House  would  welcome  the 
Nationalisation  of  Mines  and  Railways." 

Ayes — Mr.  G.  L.  Jones  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes 
(St.  John's). 

Noes—Mr.  H.  V.  F.  Barran  (Trinity),  Mr.  A.  C. 
Thompson  (Trinity  Hall). 

Division  : — Ayes,  41  ;  Noes,  74.  Motion  lost  by 
33  votes. 

March  nth:  " That  this  House  desires  to  express  its 
confidence  in  the  ability  of  His  Majesty's  Government  to 
conduct  the  Foreign  and  Domestic  affairs  of  the  Empire." 

Ayes — Mr.  Ernest  Evans  (ex-President,  Trinity  Hall), 
Mr.  T.  A.  Lewis,  M.P.  (Pontypridd). 

Noes — Mr.  Raglan  Somerset  (Queens'),  Mr.  J.  H.  B. 
Nihill,  M.C.  (ex-President,  Emmanuel). 

Division  : — Ayes,  121  ;  Noes,  83.  Motion  won  by  38 
votes. 


Easter  Term,    19 19. 

Officers  and  Committee. 

President  :  W.   L.  McNair  (Gonville  and  Caius). 

Vice-President  :  J.  W.  Morris  (Trinity  Hall). 

Treasurer:  J.  E.  McTaggart,  Litt.D.  (Trinity). 

Librarian  :  B.  G.  Brown,  M.A.  (Trinity). 

Steward  :  E.  BuUough,  M.A.  (Gonville  and  Caius). 

Secretary:  C.  D.  B.  Ellis  (King's). 

Standing  Committee  :  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's). 

I.  David  (St.  John's). 

G.  F.  Johnson  (King's). 

J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 

D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 

A.  C.  Thompson  (Trinit}'  Hall). 

April    29th,    1919. 

Motion  :  ''That  this  House  would  welcome  the  adoption 
of  a  system  of  hnperial  Federation.^ ^ 

The  presence  of  an  exceptional  number  of  men  from 
Overseas  rendered  this  debate  more  than  usually  interest- 
ing. Though  the  motion  did  not  lend  itself  to  light  and 
scintillating  treatment,  the  substance  of  the  speeches  was 
throughout  uncommonly  good,  and  the  interest  was  well 
maintained  to  the  end.  The  opinion  of  the  representatives 
of  the  Colonies — (no  offence  is  meant,  though  it  is  some- 
times taken  in  the  use  of  this  term  instead  of  the  more 
cumbrous  "self-governing  dominions  beyond  the  seas  ") — 
was  almost  equally  divided.  The  House  appeared  to  be 
more  in  contact  with  realities  than  is  usual  when  dealing 
with  problems  of  Imperial  policy. 

Mr.  C.  N.  Thompson  (St.  John's),  in  opening,  outlined 
a  thoroughly  constructive  scheme,  having  as  its  main  idea 
the  erection  of  a  central  assembly  with  elected  representa- 
tives from  all  parts  of  the  Empire,  with  sovereign  power 
to  decide  questions  of  war  and  peace  for  the  whole  Common- 
wealth. Such  an  assembly  would  check  the  separatist 
movement,  of  which  the  proposer  had  had  experience  in 
South  Africa,  and  would  enable  the  Empire  to  make  full 
use  of  the  best  brains  from  Overseas,  which,  in  the  emer- 
gency of  the  war,  had  rendered  such  inv;iliiable  service. 


8  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's)  declared  that  the  pro- 
posed federation  lacked  the  fundamental  requirements  of 
federalism — contiguity  and  the  desire  to  federate.  The 
geographical  dispersion  and  disparity  of  population  pre- 
cluded any  idea  of  adequate  and  efficient  representation, 
while  the  delicately  balanced  peace  of  the  world  would  be 
threatened  by  any  future  centralisation  and  consolidation. 
The  natural  process  was  exactly  contrary  to  that  proposed 
by  the  motion.  Imperial  policy  must  aim  at  extending 
step  by  step  the  self-governing  powers  of  the  constituent 
parts. 

Mr.  C.  R.  Fay  (Christ's)  developed  still  further  his 
leader's  scheme  of  federation.  The  experience  of  19 14 
demonstrated  that  the  outlying  parts  of  the  Empire  must 
have  a  voice  on  the  issues  of  peace  and  war.  A  central 
representative  assembly  onl}-  could  deal  adequately  with 
questions  of  Imperial  defence  and  allocate  the  burden  to 
be  borne  by  each  part.  Problems  of  labour,  industry  and 
immigration  required  the  same  treatment.  Mr.  Fay  is  always 
forcible  and  illuminating,  and  was  on  strong  ground  when 
he  declared  that  the  successful  federation  of  the  divergent 
nationalities  within  the  Empire  would  aiford  the  best 
proof  of  the  possibility  of  nations  living  together  in  amity. 

Mr.  A.  C.  Thompson  (Trinity  Hall)  maintained  that 
the  present  system  of  Imperial  conferences  provided 
sufficient  co-ordination  and  obviated  any  possibility  of 
grave  dissension.  Even  under  the  closer  union  it  w^as 
inconceivable  that  force  would  ever  be  used  to  coerce  a 
recalcitrant  member,  while  conflicting  interests  and 
divergencies  of  policy  would  be  accentuated. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (Vice-President,  Trinity  Hall)  saw 
in  federation  the  natural  organic  evolution  from  the 
present  system.  In  the  Imperial  assembly  the  forces  of 
order  would  find  rallying  points  to  enable  them  to  defeat 
the  elements  of  disruption. 

Mr.  J.  B.  CoNDLiFFE  (Gonville  and  Caius)  expressed  a 
fear  that  federation  would  minimize  rather  than  increase 
the  power  of  self-government  at  present  enjoyed,  and 
predicted  that  democracy,  so  constituted,  would  become  an 
instrument  of  militarism — an  enemy  whose  presence  Mr. 
Condliffe  is  never  slow  to  detect. 

Lieut.  Field,  R.N.  (Emmanuel)  :  The  difficulties  of 
federation  were  infinitely  less  than  those  of  a  League  of 
Nations. 


UNION   DEBATE,   APRIL    1919  9 

Mr.  S.  S.  Imam  (Trinity)  explained  that  the  NationaHst 
aims  of  India  would  not  be  satisfied  b}'  any  partial  consti- 
tutional change. 

Mr.  G.  B.  Harrison  (Queens'),  whilst  denying  the 
reality  and  sincerity  of  the  Nationalist  movements,  found 
in  federation  the  opportunity  for  British  labour  to  realise 
its  aims. 

There  also  spoke  in  favour  of  the  motion  ]\Ir.  }.  P. 
Milne  (Trinitv),  Mr.  V.  K.  Thakur  (FitzwiUiam  Hall), 
Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel),  and  .Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong 
(Selwyn),  while  the  opposition  received  support  from 
Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  G.  M.  Graham 
(King's),  Mr.  G.  L.  Jones  (Emmanuel),  and  Mr.  J.  F.  A. 
North  (Downing). 

A  division  showed  :  Ayes,  89  ;  Noes,  59  ;  the  motion 
being  lost  by  30  votes. 

May    6th,    191 9. 

Motion  :  ''That  this  House  neither  desires  to  'Jiang  the 
Kaiser,'  nor  to  'make  Germany  pay.' 

Amendment  :  "To  substitute  does  not  desire  for  neither 
desires,  and  to  delete  all  words  after  Kaiser." 

In  anticipation  of  an  exciting  evening,  great  numbers 
flocked  to  the  Union  to  hear  Mr.  Lloyd  George's  election 
pledges  challenged.  Rumour  was  busy  with  reports  of 
demonstrations  and  counter-demonstrations  prepared  for 
the  night,  but  the  dignity  of  the  Society  escaped  unscathed, 
and  the  Press  correspondent,  who  had  reserved  the  use  of 
the  post  office  wire  for  flashing  to  the  London  morning 
papers  an  account  of  the  "Great  Rag  at  the  Cambridge 
Union,"  had  perforce  to  go  away  disappointed.  The 
amendment  standing  in  the  name  of  Mr.  H.  Grose  Hodge 
(ex-President,  Pembroke),  which  was  carried  by  a  large 
majority,  had  the  effect  of  confining  the  discussion,  after 
the  first  four  speakers,  to  a  simpler  issue  than  that  pre- 
sented to  the  electors  of  Cambridge  a  few  months  previously. 
The  acquittal  of  the  distinguished  personage  drew  on  the 
Society  maledictions  from  certain  anonymous  corres- 
pondents, one  even  going  so  far  as  to  condemn  all  those 
voting  in  the  majority  to  the  fate  which  they  had  thought 
unfitting  for  the  Kaiser. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse)  disarmed  all  criticism 
by  the  moderation  with  which  he  opened  his  case.     His 


lo  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

proposal  directly  challenged  the  general  election  pledges 
which  had  been  extorted  from  the  Government  by  the 
Northcliffe  Press,  in  spite  of  their  contravention  of  the 
terms  on  which  Germany  had  submitted.  An  impartial 
tribunal  pronouncing  sentence  would  be  executing  the 
office  of  an  Avenger  and  not  of  Justice,  and  at  best  could 
add  little  to  the  overwhelming  punishment  the  victim  was 
already  enduring.  Staggering  indemnities  could  never  be 
recovered  from  a  bankrupt  Germany,  and  were  as  un- 
desirable as  they  were  impracticable. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel),  as  the  representative  of 
the  strong  and  sane  but  by  no  means  silent  man,  demanded 
full  justice  in  vigorous  terms.  Exemplary  punishment  of 
the  Kaiser  would  stamp  out  Prussianism  at  its  source. 
Our  own  history  had  shown  that  no  person,  however 
highly  placed,  was  above  the  law  in  the  case  of  the  gravest 
offences.  Forgiveness  would  be  taken  as  a  sign  of  weakness 
and  lead  to  further  excesses.  Mr.  Reid's  concluding  full- 
throated  war-cry  brought  down  the  House. 

Mr.  E.  Herbert  (Trinity)  deprecated  on  the  ground  of 
expediency  any  exemplary  punishment  of  either  the  Kaiser 
or  Germany.  The  world  did  not  want  a  Saint  Wilhelm 
and  an  outiaged  Germany,  but  requhed  peace  to  recover 
from  the  devastation  of  war.  The  amount  both  in  money 
and  in  kind  that  would  eventually  be  recovered  from 
Germany  would  increase  in  proportion  to  the  moderation 
of  our  demands. 

Mr.  A.  E.  Clarke-Williams  (Trinity  Hall)  elaborated 
the  proposition  that  the  satisfaction  of  revenge  and  righteous 
indignation  was  a  legitimate  end  of  punishment,  and 
declared  that  the  greatest  security  of  peace  was  the 
certainty  that  the  belhgerents  would  suffer — particularly 
the  losers  !  Germany  would  misunderstand  magnanimity, 
and  would  merely  conserve  her  energies  pour  mieux  sauter. 

By  an  overwhelming  show  of  hands  on  the  amendment, 
the  House  declared  that  it  wished  to  confine  its  present 
attention  to  the  Kaiser.  There  followed  from  Mr.  H. 
Grose  Hodge  (ex-President,  Pembroke)  a  vigorous  and 
eloquent  speech  in  favour  of  clemency  and  the  divine 
right  of  kings,  which  completely  won  over  the  House. 
Germany  would  never  flout  Europe  unless  revivified  by 
the  martyrdom  of  the  Kaiser.  In  conclusion,  "This  is  no 
time  to  hand  over  any  crowned  head  to  the  tender  mercies 
of  the  proletariat." 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1919  11 

Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel)  was  not  content 
with  hanging  the  Kaiser,  but  wanted  to  "hang  the  lot." 

Lieut.  D.  T.  C.  Field,  R.N.  (Emmanuel)  and  Mr.  G. 
Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke)  both  felt  that,  with  a  dead 
Kaiser,  the  world  would  not  be  disturbed  by  a  repetition 
of  the  Hundred  Days. 

Mr.  J.  K.  BousFiELD  (Gonville  and  Caius)  lifted  the 
veil  of  secrecy  from  the  history  of  the  Berlin  councils  in 
August,  1914,  and  suggested  that  an  Allied  loan  to  Germany 
would  be  well  repaid. 

Mr.  B,  F.  Stevenson,  U.S.A.  (Sidney  Sussex),  delighted 
the  House  with  a  display  of  American  oratory  in  which  he 
portrayed,  as  the  fittest  punishment,  the  declining  days  of 
the  Kaiser  lived  out  amidst  the  scorn  of  the  world. 

"I  see  an  old  man  tottering  down  the  hillside  of  life 
supported  by  a  broken  sceptre,  his  proud  legions  scattered 
and  defeated.     Leave  him  to  his  memories." 

After  speeches  in  favour  of  Kaisericide  from  Mr.  R.  F. 
Adgie  (Clare)  and  Mr.  S.  H.  Buck  (St.  Catharine's),  and 
against  from  Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney)  and  Mr.  A.  S.  Le 
Maitre  (St.  John's),  the  House  declared  by  209  votes  to 
79  its  approval  of  the  amended  motion.  So  ended  a 
memorable  debate. 

May    13th,    1 9 19. 

Motion  :  ^'That  this  House  condemns  the  inaction  of  the 
Government  with  regard  to  Ireland.^' 

On  many  historic  occasions  in  the  past,  Ireland  has 
provided  an  engrossing  subject  for  Union  debates,  but 
seldom  before  had  the  condition  of  the  "distressful" 
country,  combined  with  the  fluctuating  policy  of  the 
Government,  been  so  apparently  hopeless.  Before  the 
war,  periods  of  political  unrest  had  generally  coincided 
with  times  of  economic  distress,  but  on  this  occasion  Ireland 
presented  a  picture  of  great  commercial  prosperity  com- 
bined with  the  gravest  social  and  political  upheavals  which 
were  only  the  prelude  for  far  more  serious  disturbances 
in  the  near  future. 

Mr.  C.  D.  B.  Ellis  (Secretary,  King's)  anticipated 
criticism  by  saying  that  it  was  not  his  duty  to  suggest  a 
constructive  solution,  but  merely  to  condemn  the  lack  of 
policy  in  the  Government.  This  he  did  with  a  will.  The 
policy  of  coercion  coerced  no  one.     The  Home  Rule  Act 

c 


12  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

placed  on  the  Statute  Book  through  funk  of  the  Nationahsts, 
was  suspended  through  funk  of  Ulster ;  conscription,  im- 
posed through  funk  of  England,  was  withheld  through 
funk  of  Ireland.  The  Government  throughout  had  blown 
hot  and  cold  alternatively.  Better  a  wrong  policy  ener- 
getically pursued  than  the  right  policy  not  persistently 
followed  through  to  the  end. 

Mr.  G,  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke)  showed  by  a 
process  of  elimination  that  no  other  policy  was  possible. 
Effective  repression  was  alien  to  the  British  nature.  The 
Government  had  removed  every  grievance  that  was 
possible,  but  had  failed  to  grant  independence.  To  this 
England  could  never  agree.  Ireland,  after  her  conduct  in 
the  war,  had  no  right  to  claim  treatment  as  a  neutral.  Her 
claim  to  self-determination  must  be  postponed  till  the 
Cabinet  were  freed  from  the  embarrassments  of  the  Peace 
Conference.     Till  then  inaction  was  the  wisest  policy. 

Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney  Sussex)  said  that  Ireland's 
distress  centred  in  England's  unfailing  policy  of  treating 
her  as  a  pawn  in  every  Parliamentary  contest.  This  policy 
was  still  pursued,  and  was  fatal  to  the  peace  of  Ireland. 
Our  policy  of  concession  when  embarrassed,  and  repression 
when  free  from  embarrassment,  had  justified  the  slogan 
that  England's  weakness  was  Ireland's  opportunity. 
Ireland's  claim  to  be  heard  at  Paris  was  not  unreasonable; 
and,  even  if  not  the  ideal  solution,  it  was  at  any  rate  a 
practical  policy  which  was  preferable  to  the  vacillation  of 
the  moment. 

Mr.  L.  B.  Charles  (Trinity)  explained  that  the  Govern- 
ment's present  policy  was  to  allow  Irishmen  of  all  parties 
and  creeds  to  come  together  and  work  out  their  own 
solution.  If  any  agreement  was  suggested,  the  Government 
would  hasten  to  give  it  legislative  clothing,  so  long  as  it 
satisfied  Ireland's  needs  and  England's  honour.  The 
House  should  not  condemn  inaction  when  action  was 
impossible. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse)  then  made  a  violent 
incursion  into  the  debate  with  a  moving  description  of  the 
tragedy  of  the  Irish  soldier  who  had  gone  out  to  win 
freedom  for  others  and  had  returned  to  find  himself 
regarded  with  scorn  and  suspicion  as  an  agent  of  a  Govern- 
ment that  had  failed  to  give  freedom  to  his  own  country. 
Mr.  Redmond  had  risked  his  political  future  by  holding 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1919  13 

out  the  hand  of  friendship  to  England  in  19 14.  The  War 
Office  had  thwarted  and  spurned  his  offer.  In  the  Conven- 
tion a  substantial  measure  of  agreement  had  been  reached, 
but  to  no  purpose.  Conscription  had  merely  exasperated 
the  country,  and  weakened  rather  than  strengthened 
Britain's  military  effort.  The  onl}^  obstacle  to  a  permanent 
settlement  was  the  so-called  Homogeneous  Ulster,  which 
in  fact  was  confined  to  two  counties  and  a  borough  and  a 
half.  Mr.  Abraham's  Celtic  fire  effectually  raised  the 
temperature  of  the  House. 

Mr.  J.  P.  Milne  (Trinity)  said  that  Ireland's  only  real 
difficulty  was  the  rehgious  antagonism.  Her  crocodile 
tears  were  based  on  imaginary  sorrows. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel),  rising  from  the 
cross-benches,  denied  the  responsibility  of  the  Government 
for  a  state  of  affairs  that  was  almost  incapable  of  legislative 
solution. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel)  :  No  Irish  solution  w^as 
possible  till  the  Government  was  relieved  from  its  pre- 
occupations in  the  Paris  Conference  ;  to  which  Mr.  G.  G. 
Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  retorted  that  the  Premier  should 
have  delegated  authority  to  deal  with  Ireland  to  some 
responsible  minister  at  home. 

Mr.  N.  H,  HiLLSON  (Downing)  described,  with  a 
genuine  conviction  which  will  always  arrest  the  House,  the 
despair  which  had  driven  Sinn  Fein  into  the  hands  of 
Germany.  Ireland's  war  history  was  a  record  of  generous 
offers  scorned  and  sincere  compromises  stultified  by 
England's  lack  of  understanding.  To  Mr.  P.  J.  Heaton 
{Queens')  the  priesthood's  interference  in  politics  was  the 
-cause  of  Ireland's  distress,  while  Mr.  F.  E.  Smith  (Sidney) 
protested  that  the  presence  of  the  British  troops  was  alone 
responsible.  Mr.  R.  S.  Henry,  U.S.  (Queens')  enlarged  on 
the  poisoning  of  Britain's  international  relations  by  the 
Irish  problem.  That  the  Irishmen  in  America  alone  out- 
numbered the  Irishmen  at  home  was  in  itself  irrefutable 
proof  that  ICngland  had  failed. 

There  also  spoke  in  support  of  the  motion  :  Mr.  T. 
Swan  (Emmanuel)  and  Mr.  L.  H.  Perratou  (Christ's),  and 
against  :  Mr.  E.  W.  Sampson  (C'orpus). 

Division  : — Ayes,  94  ;    Noes,  58. 


14  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

May    20th,    19 19. 

Motion  :  ^^That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  wide 
application  of  the  Whitley  Report  will  afford  the  best  solution 
of  the  probletn  of  industrial  tinrest." 

On  this  motion  the  House  had  the  opportunity  of 
giving  its  attention  to  one  of  the  most  important  attempts 
at  solving  the  problems  of  modern  industry.  How  difficult 
the  problems  are,  was  apparent  when  Mr.  Frank  Hodges 
declared  that  the  proposed  solution  was  entirely  unaccept- 
able to  most  of  the  largest  bodies  of  organised  labour. 
The  debate  was  marked  with  several  speeches  of  consider- 
able force,  showing  great  diversity  of  view,  but  an  equal 
sincerity  on  both  sides  in  their  efforts  to  solve  the  problem. 

Mr.  J.  B.CoNDLiFFE  (Gonville  and  Caius),  in  a  character- 
istically well-informed  speech,  explained  how  the  Whitley 
Committee  had  outlined  a  skeleton  of  industrial  machinery 
suited  to  the  exigencies  of  the  different  trades.  The  scheme 
was  frankly  a  compromise  between  capitalistic  production 
and  democratic  control  of  industry,  and  sought  to  allay 
the  paralysing  suspicion  between  masters  and  men.  Labour 
had  herein  the  opportunity  of  working  tow^ards  the  goal 
of  self-government  in  industry  and  of  gaining  preliminary 
experience  in  management.  The  only  alternative  was  a 
continuance  of  the  policy  of  drift  towards  a  series  of 
prolonged  and  bitter  strikes  in  which  the  middle  classes 
would  be  crushed  between  the  contending  parties. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall),  who  is  also  in  his 
element  in  industrial  politics,  decried  the  scheme  as  out- 
of-date.  Labour  difficulties  had  moved  past  the  time  when 
they  could  be  removed  by  consultative  councils.  The 
organised  workers  saw  in  the  scheme  a  probability  of 
extended  Government  interference,  and  frankly  repudiated 
the  proferred  palliative. 

ColonelMALONE,M.C.  (M.P.  for  Leyton,  East),  explained 
the  ver}^  considerable  success  that  the  Whitley  Councils 
had  already  achieved.  They  were  the  natural  result  of  the 
greater  responsibility  and  fuller  share  in  life  in  general  that 
Labour  had  legitimately  demanded  and  won  as  a  result 
of  the  war.  The  time  called  for  progress  on  evolutionary 
lines,  and  not  for  drastic  upheavals  such  as  had  resulted 
from  the  adoption  of  the  industrial  franchise  in  Russia. 
Whitley  Councils  had  already  been  established  for  industries 
employing  over  two  million  workers,  and  were  converting 


UNION    DEBATE    MAY    1919  15 

commerce  into  a  social  service  with  an  esprit  de  corps  of 
its  own.  By  discussions  across  the  table,  employers  would 
get  into  touch  with  the  best  brains  of  the  workers,  while 
labour  would  gain  an  invaluable  insight  into  the  problems 
of  finance  and  management.  The  Whitley  Movement 
provided  an  opportunity  for  the  fullest  examination  of  the 
best  method  of  managing  each  individual  industr}'. 
Colonel  Malone  succeeded  in  demonstrating  to  the  House 
that  the  motion  dealt  with  realities  and  not  with  mere 
academic  economics. 

?\Ir.  Frank  Hodges  (Secretary  of  the  Miners'  Federa- 
tion, Ruskin  College,  Oxford),  fresh  from  his  labours  on  the 
Coal  Commission,  predicted  the  failure  of  the  Whitley 
Movement.  No  permanent  improvement  in  the  relation 
of  employers  and  employed  was  possible  on  the  present 
basis.  An  unhol}'  alliance  of  divergent  interests  within  any 
trade  could  only  be  reached  at  the  expense  of  the  consumer. 
The  Triple  Alliance,  which  alwa3^s  reflected  the  growing 
opinion  of  the  less  organised  unions,  had  rejected  the 
scheme  owing  to  its  unwillingness  to  admit  that  the  em- 
ployer, as  a  mere  provider  of  capital,  had  any  right  to  a 
voice  in  management.  Technical  managers  and  other 
brain  workers  were,  and  would  be,  recognised  as  genuine 
contributors  to  production.  The  Whitley  scheme  pro- 
vided a  purely  political  solution  imposed  on  industr}'  from 
without,  while  educated  labour  was  confident  in  its  powers 
to  evolve  a  solution  for  industrial  problems  from  within. 
Mr.  Hodges  adds  to  very  considerable  oratorical  powers  a 
penetrating  brain,  which  is  bound  to  make  its  impression 
felt  on  the  industrial  history  of  the  near  future.  The 
House  accorded  him  a  great  ovation  at  the  conclusion  of 
his  speech,  and  welcomed  his  additional  contribution  to  a 
practical  solution  at  the  end  of  the  debate. 

Mr.  J.  H.  B.  NiHiLL  (ex-President,  Emmanuel)  accused 
the  Labour  movement  of  short-sightedness  in  refusing  this 
unique  opportunity  of  utilising  the  scheme  as  an  intro- 
duction to  greater  changes.  In  many  cases  in  practice  the 
two  extremes  had  already  met  and  reached  substantial 
agreement  on  important  points.  So  far  from  constituting 
a  barrier,  the  Whitley  Report  should  be  a  land-mark  on 
the  road  to  industrial  development.  Mr.  Nihill  tackled 
Mr.  Hodges  with  great  courage,  and  considerable  success. 

In  the  view  of  Mr.  T.  B.  Hoste  (Emmanuel)  the  grave 


i6  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

social  evils  of  the  moment  could  only  be  cured  by  bold 
social  experiments,  and  not  by  industrial  remedies. 

Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  (Selwyn)  based  his  confidence  in 
the  Whitley  Report  on  the  success  of  the  Lever  experiment 
and  the  co-operative  movement. 

After  speeches  in  support  from  Mr.  A.  Schofield 
(Gonville  and  Caius),  and  in  opposition  from  Mr.  J.  P. 
Milne  (Trinity)  and  Mr.  J.  A.  Carroll  (Sidney),  the 
House  expressed  its  approval  of  the  Whitley  Scheme  by 
126  votes  to  88. 


May  27th,   1919. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  would  welcome  the  imme- 
diate reform  of  the  Divorce  Laws  of  England  and  Wales." 

This  motion  provided  a  rather  one-sided  debate,  which 
was  unremarkable  except  for  a  vigorous  and  broad-minded 
speech  from  the  opener,  Mr.  S.  C.  Morgan.  The  weakness 
of  the  opposition  necessarily  lay  in  natural  disinchnation 
of  the  House  to  discuss  freely  the  religious  question, 
without  which  no  effective  defence  can  be  raised  to  Divorce 
Reform.  Notwithstanding  the  difficulty,  the  tail  wagged 
vigorously  to  the  end. 

Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan  (Trinity),  while  appreciating 
the  religious  sincerity  of  the  Opposition,  hoped  to  show 
that  laws  moralty  good  could  never  run  counter  to  the 
highest  interpretation  of  religious  faith.  The  present 
procedure  in  divorce  was  ineffective,  and  could  not  be 
remedied  until  the  Assize  Courts  throughout  the  country 
obtained  jurisdiction  to  hear  causes  now  determined  only 
in  London.  Equality  of  the  sexes  was  essential  to  justice. 
The  present  law  pressed  more  heavily  on  the  poor  than  the 
rich,  so  that  now  they  were  taking  the  law  into  their  own 
hands.  No  religious  purpose  was  served  by  binding  the 
innocent  party  b}^  legal  bonds  when  the  spiritual  tie  had 
been  dissolved.  An  extension  of  the  grounds  for  dis- 
solution should  be  made  to  comprise  wilful  desertion, 
commuted  death  sentence,  incurable  insanity,  and  cruelty, 
strictly  defined,  while  absolute  equality  of  the  sexes  could 
not  logically  be   denied. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (Vice-President,  Trinity  Hall),  in  a 
liberal  interpretation  of  the  motion,  was  prepared  to 
follow  the  proposer  in  advocating  certain  procedural 
reforms,  including  equality  of  the  sexes,  but  was  adamant 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1919  17 

against  embarking  on  the  perilous  seas  that  surrounded 
every  proposal  for  widening  the  grounds  for  divorce. 
Infidelity  alone  could  form  the  basis  for  a  claim  for  dis- 
solving the  tie  and  giving  freedom  to  remarry  ;  the  other 
tragedies  of  unsuccessful  unions  were  adequately  met  by 
separation  orders  and  decrees  of  nullity.  Separation  left 
open  the  door  to  reconciliation.  No  steps  must  be 
countenanced  that  in  any  way  might  imperil  the  sacred 
character  of  the  marriage  tie.  Better  the  few  should  suffer 
than  that  any  disturbing  shock  should  be  given  to  the 
sanctity  and  indissolubility  of  the  union  on  which  the 
homes  of  the  people  were  based.  On  the  homes  of  the 
people  the  destiny  and  greatness  of  our  country  depended. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel),  basing  his  view  on 
the  simple  ground  of  expediency,  postulated  that  no  laws 
should  be  so  strict  as  to  lead  to  their  general  disregard. 
To-day  immoral  unions  were  countenanced  and  approved 
because  popular  opinion  recognised  that  the  law  was 
inadequate.  The  acute  and  poignant  distress  which  was 
caused  in  many  homes  throughout  the  country  b}''  the 
rigours  of  the  divorce  laws  could  not  be  justified  in  the 
name  of  religion.  It  was  an  exaggeration  to  speak  of  moral 
anarchy  arising  from  the  recognition  by  the  State  of  the 
dissolution  of  the  bond  when  the  spiritual  basis  of  the  union 
had  already  gone.  Every  reform  in  history  had  been 
met  with  the  argument  of  the  thin  end  of  the  wedge,  and  it 
was  cowardice  not  to  face  the  question  fairly.  The  House 
was  asked  to  remove  an  intolerable  burden  from  the 
innocent  sufi"erers  so  that  the  nation  might  be  enriched  by 
their  entr}^  into  a  fuller  and  happier  married  life. 

Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's)  deplored  the 
opportunism  of  the  proposers.  No  legal  rules  could  deter- 
mine at  what  moment  the  essential  basis  of  a  marriage  had 
disappeared.  Reform  would  lead  to  national  degeneracy. 
Mr.  Le  Maitre  then  entered  into  a  speculation  as  to  the 
origin  of  marriage  law,  became  irrelevant  and  sat  down. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse)  denied  that  on  moral 
grounds  there  was  anything  to  choose  between  divorce 
and  separation.  Any  attempt  to  enforce  by  law  particular 
religious  views  of  marriage  was  sheer  intolerance. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel)  welcomed  the  strictness 
of  the  marriage  tie  as  a  check  against  hasty  action  which 
might  lead  to  catastrophe. 


1 8  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Lieut.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel)  courageously 
challenged  the  assertion  that  expediency  was  alone  in- 
volved. A  definite  moral  issue  of  right  or  wrong  was 
raised.  The  traitor  to  the  marriage  bond  deserved  the 
penalty  of  the  traitor  to  the  State. 

Mr.  E,  J.  Maskell  (Emmanuel)  :  The  law  should  not 
attempt  to  perpetuate  the  union  when  personal  love  was 
dead. 

To  Mr.  J.  P.  Milne  (Trinity)  it  was  unreasonable  that 
the  voluntar}^  parties  to  an  unsuccessful  marriage  should 
call  upon  the  State  to  relieve  them  of  the  results  of  their 
mistake. 

After  speeches  in  support  from  Mr.  J.  F.  A.  North 
(Downing),  Mr.  E.  R.  C.  Walker  (Emmanuel)  and  Mr.  F.  E. 
Smith  (Sidney  Sussex)  had  been  answered  by  Mr.  E.  L. 
Davison  (St.  John's)  the  Division  showed  :  Ayes,  145  ; 
Noes,  38. 

June   3rd,    1919. 

Motion  :  '^That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  best 
interests  of  the  country  would  be  served  by  a  speedy  return 
to  the  principles  of  Liberalism.^' 

A  crowded  and  excited  House  assembled  in  the  anticipa- 
tion of  enjoying  a  verbal  duel  between  Sir  John  Simon  and 
Mr.  Smillie.  Unfortunately  the  former  was  unavoidably 
prevented  from  coming  to  Cambridge,  his  place  being  most 
adequately  filled,  however,  by  the  Rev.  J.  K.  Mozley 
(Pembroke).  Mr.  Smillie  received  an  ovation  such  as  the 
House  is  always  willing  to  accord  to  a  distinguished 
stranger,  and  charmed  his  friends  and  foes  alike  by  his 
transparent  honesty  and  power.  The  result  of  the  poll 
was  first  announced  by  the  President. 

President :  Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (Trinity  Hall). 
Vice-President :  Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel). 
Secretary  :  Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 
Standing  Coinniittee  :    Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke). 

Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's). 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 

Mr.   J.   B.  Condliffe  (Gonville  and 

Caius). 

Mr.  N.  G.  Dunning  (Peterhouse). 

Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney  Sussex). 


UNION    DEBATE,    JUNE    1919  19 

The  customary  votes  of  thanks  having  been  accorded  to 
the  retiring  officers,  Mr.  W.  L.  McNair  (retiring  President, 
Gonville  and  Caius)  emphasised  the  necessity  of  a  return 
to  principles  which  were  apt  to  become  strained  during 
the  stress  of  war.  The  present  Coahtion  was  the  product 
of  a  war  emergency,  and  was  impossible  as  a  lasting  system. 
The  time  was  ripe  for  the  revival  of  Government  by  a 
united  party  possessing  a  coherent  policy.  Unionism  was 
an  old  man's  faith  without  pride  of  ancestry  or  hope  of 
progeny.  Labour  was  too  deeph'  committed  to  direct 
action  to  govern  successfully  by  constitutional  methods. 
Liberalism  alone  remained  as  a  central  policy  to  which  all 
moderate  men  could  adhere.  It  stood  for  freedom  in  its 
fullest  sense,  and  was  in  no  way  antagonistic  to  the  real 
aims  of  Labour. 

This  evoked  from  Mr.  H.  Grose  Hodge  (ex-President, 
Pembroke)  a  torrential  condemnation  of  the  Liberal 
party,  and  Mr.  Asquith  in  particular.  Before  the  war  the 
Liberals  were  wolves  in  sheeps'  clothing  ;  during  the  war 
they  were  sheep  in  wolves'  clothing.  In  both  disguises  he 
disliked  them  intensel3^  Where  were  the  principles  of 
Liberalism  to  be  found  ?  Mr.  Asquith  had  throughout  his 
administration  violated  the  orthodox  professions  of  his 
faith,  in  particular  in  the  Trades  Disputes  Act,  the  policy 
towards  the  feminist  movement,  and  the  threat  to  Ulster 
in  19 14.  The  Liberals  had  made  no  provision  for  the  war, 
which  found  the  country  wholly  unprepared.  Their  real 
principles  were  to  get  into  office,  to  remain  in  office,  and  to 
wait  and  see.  Could  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin  ?  And 
yet  his  skin  could  not  be  blacker,  nor  that  of  the  leopard 
more  indelibly  covered  with  spots,  than  that  of  the  Liberal 
party.  "  Get  you  gone,  get  3'ou  gone,  and  give  you  place 
to  better  men." 

The  Rev.  J.  K.  Mozley  (ex-President,  Pembroke)  made 
a  vigorous  reply  to  the  accusations  laid  against  his  leader. 
The- charge  of  hypocrisy  was  easy  to  make,  hard  to 
combat,  but  had  been  unsubstantiated.  Mr.  Asquith  had 
borne  for  ten  years  an  unexampled  burden  of  responsibility 
and  had  deserved  well  of  England.  Liberalism,  in  its 
principles,  showed  a  temper  and  a  spirit  ;  it  was  evolution- 
ary and,  in  the  best  sense,  opportunist.  The  world,  and 
this  country  in  particular,  needed  three  things  which 
Liberalism  could  alone  give  it,  a  secure  and  lasting  peace 


20  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

backed  bj^  the  League  of  Nations,  a  restored  respect  for 
parliamentary  institutions,  and  a  new  social  order  arrived 
at  by  evolutionary  means. 

Mr.  Robert  Smillie  (President  of  the  Miners'  Federa- 
tion) rising  at  a  late  hour,  immediately  captured  the 
attention  of  the  House.  He  began  by  protesting  against 
the  scant  justice  that  had  been  paid  to  Scotland  throughout 
the  debate.  Scotland  was  the  home  of  Liberalism,  and, 
without  her,  England,  which  had  held  the  first  place  in  the 
debate,  would  have  had  no  Liberalism.  Continuing,  Mr. 
Smillie  regretted  that  even  here  his  long  search  for  the 
principles  of  Liberahsm  had  been  unfruitful.  Pledges  in 
plenty  had  been  given  in  the  past  only  to  be  forgotten  as 
soon  as  their  object  had  been  served.  The  workers  had 
again  and  again  returned  the  Liberal  party  to  power,  but 
had  not  received  the  social  reforms  which  they  had  the 
right  to  expect.  Slow  to  learn,  Labour  had  at  last  realised 
that  it  must  pursue  a  course  independent  of  the  two  historic 
parties  and  saw  in  Liberalism  the  more  formidable  antagonist 
of  the  two.  The  Tory  party  was  its  declared  enemy, 
and  made  no  hypocritical  pretensions  to  its  support. 
Labour  could  never  come  to  real  grips  with  the  party  of 
capital  until  the  relics  of  Liberalism  had  been  cleared  from 
its  path.  Mr.  Smillie  spoke  of  the  times  when  there  was 
really  a  Merrie  England,  and  deplored  the  commercial 
system  which  had  driven  thousands  to  emigration  and 
condemned  the  workers  to  miserable  housing  and  inefficient 
education.  The  knowledge  of  this  caused  him  to  be  a 
rebel,  with  a  determination  to  arouse  the  country  to  a 
realisation  of  the  position.  Why  were  the  children  of  the 
working  classes  compelled  to  go  into  mine  and  factory 
at  a  time  when  his  hearers  were  really  commencing  their 
education  ?  Every  child  born  in  this  country  had  a  right 
to  expect  an  opportunity  of  obtaining  the  highest  education. 
Countless  poets,  artists,  inventors  were  condemned  to 
sterility  by  the  industrial  system  which  denied  them  an 
opportunity  to  rise.  The  working  classes  were  realising 
their  power  with  amazing  rapidity,  and  would  not  tolerate 
a  continuance  of  the  old  system.  What  system  would 
evolve  none  could  tell.  As  to  Russia,  only  a  few  in  the 
inner  councils  of  the  Government  could  as  yet  judge  what 
measure  of  success  had  been  attained.  The  Kaiser  and  his 
entourage  were  only  partially  to  blame  for  the  war.  The 
capitalistic   system   in   England,   America,   Germany   and 


UNION   DEBATE,   JUNE    1919  21 

elsewhere  was  the  real  cause,  and,  until  that  was  broken, 
wars  would  continue. 

Labour  was  confident  in  its  ability  to  govern  the  country 
by  constitutional  means.  If  the  education  of  the  workers 
was  incomplete,  that  must  he  at  the  doors  of  the  Con- 
servative and  Liberal  parties.  When  they  did  come  to 
power  they  would  ask  for  the  assistance  of  all  educated 
men  of  goodwill.  Let  there  arise  again  a  Merrie  England 
as  good  as  the  Merrie  England  of  the  past. 

On  a  division  there  voted  for  the  motion,  115;  against, 
240. 

General  Review. 

The  Ma}'  Term,  19 19,  saw  the  Union  in  nearly  all 
respects  restored  to  its  ordinary  activities.  The  manage- 
ment of  the  Society  was  once  more  in  the  hands  of  elected 
ofticers  and  committee,  and  the  number  of  new  members 
during  the  six  months  ending  June,  19 19,  equalled  the 
average  annual  entry  for  the  years  immediately  preceding 
the  war.  The  fact  that  over  fifty  members  addressed  the 
chair  during  the  six  debates  of  this  exceptionally  short 
term  is  suflicient  proof  of  the  restored  vitality  of  the 
Society.  The  policy  of  rigorously  applying  the  closure 
to  long  speeches  received  ample  justification  in  the  sus- 
tained interest  in  debates  and  in  the  general  high  level  of 
speaking.  If  brevity  is  the  soul  of  wit,  it  is  certainly  the 
secret  of  successful  debating.  Though  no  attempt  will  be 
made  in  this  place  to  pass  in  review  individually  all  those 
who  took  part  in  the  debates,  mention  must  be  made  of  a 
few  of  the  more  prominent  speakers.  On  motions  dealing 
with  industrial  politics  Mr.  J.  B.  Condliffe  (Gonville  and 
Caius)  could  generally  be  relied  on  for  a  sound  constructive 
speech  enlivened  with  a  few  droll  stories  from  the  Antipodes; 
Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  for  a  sympathetic 
statement  of  his  case,  with  an  occasional  bon  mot,  and 
Mr.  G.  L.  Jones  (Emmanuel)  for  a  stern  matter-of-fact 
advocacy  of  the  Labour  point  of  view.  Lieut.  D.  T.  C. 
Field  (Emmanuel),  one  of  the  few  naval  officers  who  could 
be  induced  to  speak,  and  Mr.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke) 
represented  the  Imperialist  school,  and  without  fail  met  with 
the  opposition  of  Mr.  I.  David  (St.  John's)  and  Mr.  L.  A. 
Abraham  (Pcterhouse),  who  combined  considerable  orator}^ 
power  with  debating  skill.    Though  the  usual  strict  party 


22  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

lines  were  somewhat  blurred,  it  was  not  difficult  to  know 
on  which  side  would  be  found  Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney), 
Mr.  E.  Herbert  (Trinity)  and  Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's), 
each  in  his  own  way  a  sound  debater.  One  of  the  best 
speeches  of  the  term  came  from  Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan 
(Trinity)  on  Divorce  Reform.  India's  aspirations  were  on 
occasion  voiced  with  great  fluency  by  Mr.  V.  K.  Thakur 
(Fitzwilliam  Hall),  and  Mr.  S.  S.  Imam  (Trinity),  while  the 
divergent  parties  of  South  Africa  had  as  their  spokesmen 
Mr.  C.  N.  Thompson  (St.  John's)  and  Mr.  A.  C.  Thompson 
(Trinity  Hall). 

No  record  of  this  time  would  be  complete  which  did  not 
acknowledge  the  great  debt  that  the  Societ}'  owes  to  the 
ex- Presidents  in  residence  and  other  senior  members  of  the 
University,  who,  by  their  presence  and  support,  helped  to 
make  the  debates  as  successful  as  they  undoubtedly  were. 


Michaelmas   Term,    1 9 1 9 . 

Officers. 

President :  J.  \V.  ]\Iorris  (Trinity  Hall). 
Vice-President :  G.   H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel). 
Secretary  :  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 
Standing  Committee 
Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke). 
Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's). 
Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 
Mr.  J.  B.  CoNDLiFFE  (Gonville  and  Caius). 
Mr.  N.  G.  Dunning  (Peterhouse). 
Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidne}^  Sussex). 


First  Debate,  Tuesday,  October   14th,   1919. 

Motion  :  "  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  the  tendencies 
of  organised  labour  are  a  menace  to  the  present  interests  of 
the  country y 

During  the  past  two  terms  the  Union  Society  had 
gradually  re-started  all  its  activities  ;  the  last  debate  was 
the  culmination  of  a  successful  effort.  Since  the  middle 
of  January,  men  had  trickled  back  to  the  University 
through  the  steady  filter  of  demobilization,  so  that,  by  the 
end  of  the  May  Term,  the  atmosphere  was  almost  that  of  a 
normal  pre-war  year.  B\'  October  the  University  was 
quite  abnormal  ;  pre-war  veterans,  Freshmen  with  a 
record  of  five  winters'  campaigning,  Freshmen  direct  from 
Schools,  combined  to  cram  Cambridge  beyond  its  capacity. 
Debates  at  the  Union  promised  to  be  more  "live"  than 
ever  before. 

In  the  Long  Vacation,  Labour  troubles  were  acute. 
Old  men  dreamed  dreams  of  England's  decaying  greatness  ; 
young  men  saw  visions  of  the  energising  effect  of  the 
growth  of  a  free  and  unfettered  democracy.  At  the  end 
of  September  a  Railway  Strike  paralysed  the  whole  life 
of  the  country,  and  a  general  strike  seemed  imminent. 
It  was  just  after  these  big  events  that  term  began,  and 
the  motion  selected  for  the  first  Union  debate  proved 
opportune.  The  House  was  packed  ;  competition  to 
speak  was  keen. 

23 


24  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke)  proposed  the 
motion.  He  began  by  pointing  out  that  the  outlook  of 
the  mass  of  labour  was  a  narrow  one.  Even  so  he  had  no 
quarrel  with  their  aims,  but  condemned  their  means.  The 
root  of  many  of  the  present-da}'  evils  lay  in  the  Trades 
Disputes  Act  of  1906.  The  Railway  Strike  had  been 
purely  political  ;  an  absolute  negation  of  democracy.  He 
followed  with  a  strong  indictment  of  labour  agitators  who 
were  producing  Bolshevism  in  England.  Men  no  longer 
obeyed  their  leaders  ;  the  country's  trade  was  in  a  perilous 
state  ;  labour  was  not  working  its  best.  The  speaker 
concluded  with  his  picture  of  the  results  of  present 
tendencies,  and  left  the  house  with  an  awful  nightmare  of 
national  bankruptcy,  increased  taxation,  lack  of  education, 
and  ultimate  anarchy. 

The  House,  which  was  a  full  one,  listened  intently  to 
the  speeches,  for  many  were  present  who  were  forming 
first  impressions  of  a  Union  Debate.  The  audience  at  the 
Union  is  seldom  very  responsive  ;  it  is  not  an  audience 
that  is  easily  roused,  nor  one  that  is  easy  to  address; 
perhaps  it  resembles  the  House  of  Commons  ! 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (FitzwiUiam  Hall)  opposed.  He  led 
us  from  the  Chamber  of  Horrible  Possibilities  of  the  last 
speaker  to  the  Chamber  of  Horrible  Realities.  One-third 
of  the  country's  wealth  was  in  the  hands  of  one-thirtieth 
of  its  population  ;  individual  comfort  had  suffered  at  the 
hands  of  a  cruel  capitalist  system.  The  British  Empire 
was  not  worth  having  at  a  low  standard  of  individual 
comfort.  "The  present  alternatives  are  national  bank- 
ruptcy or  nationalisation."  We  must  have  a  democratised 
industry. 

The  debate  seemed  to  be  developing  into  a  discussion 
on  Labour  policy,  but  Mr.  G.  G.  Coulton  (Fellow  of  St. 
John's  College),  speaking  third,  reminded  the  House  that 
the  debate  was  on  present  tendencies.  Consider  the 
recent  strike.  "Labour  to-day  has  become  conscious  of  its 
strength,  but  not  of  the  complexity  of  Hfe."  Mr.  Cramp 
had  declared  himself  ready  for  revolution  ;  Mr.  J.  H. 
Thomas  had  stated  that  we  were  never  nearer  civil  war 
than  we  were  a  fortnight  ago.  The  recent  strike  was 
brought  about  by  the  revolutionary  element,  and  not  by 
the  rank  and  file  ;  the  latter  were  wrong  in  blindly  follow- 
ing their  leaders  ;  the  country  had  been  brought  to  the 
verge   of  civil  war.     Labour   forms   a   vast  mass   of  the 


UNION    DEBATE,   OCTOBER    19 19  25 

electorate  ;  let  Parliament  be  considered  the  true  adjuster 
of  grievances.  This  speech — with  no  needless  phrases 
or  empty  oratory — presented  a  scathing  indictment. 
Reason,  justice,  and  fair  play — these  are  qualities  that 
might  well  be  possessed  by  a  brilliant  historian  who  in 
his  time  was  a  rowing  "blue." 

Mr.  G.  D.  H.  Cole,  who  spoke  fourth,  is  one  of  the 
most  advanced,  or,  as  some  think,  extreme  amongst  the 
young  intellectuals  of  the  Labour  movement.  He  is  a 
forcible  and  fluent  speaker,  dealing  with  his  subject  in  an 
e»tirely  serious  manner,  and  giving  the  impression  of  being 
one  who  deplores  humbug,  and  would  not  suffer  fools 
gladly.  Which  side  had  been  the  better  prepared  foi 
the  railway  strike  ?  The  Government  had  admitted  their 
preparations.  The  strike  was  forced  by  certain  influences 
working  on  the  Government.  There  was  a  campaign  on 
foot  to  lower  wages.  The  repeated  promises  of  a  new 
Heaven  and  new  Earth  had  brought  no  result.  Parliament 
was  scorned  ;  it  was  composed  of  fifth-rate  company 
promoters.  Competition  had  vanished  in  this  country  ; 
large  interests  were  in  the  hands  of  a  few.  The  constructive 
remedy  for  present  ills  was  a  change  of  system  ;  there 
must  be  democracy  in  industr3^  A  great  change  of 
principle  could  not  take  place  without  some  unconstitu- 
tional element. 

There  also  spoke  :  For — Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney), 
Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  (Selw-vm),  Mr.  S.  C.  Morgan  (Trinity), 
Rev.  F.  A.  Gage-Hall  (tiinity),  Mr.  H.  M.  Yeatman 
(Pembroke),  Mr.  A.  L.  Sells  (Sidney),  Mr.  E.  S.  .-Vrundel 
(Corpus). 

Against — Mr.  J.  F.  A.  North  (Downing),  Mr.  E.  H.F.Morris 
(Christ's),  Mr.  F.  E.  Lawley  (Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr.  E.  L. 
IDavison  (St.  John's),  Mr.  J.  Herman  (Fitzwilliam  Hall), 
Mr.  A.  W.  Russell  (Caius),  Mr.  K.  Smellie  (St.  John's), 
Mr.  M.  I.  Rahim  (Pembroke). 

Division — Ayes,  242  ;    Noes,   190. 

Majority  for  :  52.     House  adjourned  11.46  p.m. 

Their  Royal  Highnesses  Prince  Albert  and  Prince 
Henry  were  7jresent,  so  taking  their  first  possible  oppor- 
tunity of  attending  a  Union  Debate.  They  took  seats 
on  the  cross-benches.  Prior  to  the  debate  they  joined  the 
Society  as  ordinary  members,  the  President  having  the 
honour  of  nominating  them. 


26  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Second  Debate,  Tuesday,  October  21st,   191 9. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  considers  the  League  of 
Nations  to  be  worthless  as  a  guarantee  of  international  peace, 
and  to  be  a  radically  unsound  and  dangerous  project." 

This  was  a  soul-inspiring  evening  ;  one  that  will  figure 
as  a  landmark  in  the  memories  of  those  whose  good  fortune 
it  was  to  be  present,  as  the  days  of  the  great  battles  will 
to  those  who  served  in  the  war.  Probably  it  is  no  conceit 
to  sa}^  that  the  debate  was  the  finest  that  has  ever  taken 
place  in  the  Union.  From  every  point  of  view  the  occasion 
was  noteworthy  and  unique.  It  was  the  first  Visitors' 
Debate  of  a  term  which  passed  all  bounds  in  its  record 
number  of  resident  undergraduates.  The  two  visitors  were 
great  personalities — The  Duke  of  Northumberland  and 
Lord  Robert  Cecil.  The  subject  for  debate  was  not  merely 
topical,  it  was  momentous  ;  it  was  a  discussion  of  a  great 
ideal  which  has  become  a  rehgion  to  so  many  ;  an  ideal 
for  which  a  fervent  and  ardent  passion  of  enthusiasm  is 
felt.  The  audience  was  composed  of  those  who  really  and 
intensely  understood  the  meaning  of  the  phrase  "  the 
horrors  of  war."  That  was  the  setting  of  what  proved 
not  a  .mere  dialectical  duel,  but  a  searching  enquiry  in 
which  every  word  was  produced  by  a  depth  of  conviction 
and  a  wealth  of  experience,  and  which  culminated  in  a 
speech  from  Lord  Robert  Cecil  that  was  conceived  in 
idealism,  and  delivered  in  a  manner  exhibiting  that  real 
fire  of  eloquence  which  stirs  to  the  depths  the  very  fibre 
of  one's  being. 

Those  who  know  the  accommodation  of  the  debating 
hall  will  understand  all  that  is  impHed  when  it  is  said  that 
over  1 ,000  members  voted.  To  others,  it  is  hardly  possible 
to  describe  the  scene.  A  sea  of  men — which  surged  over 
every  possible  space  on  the  floor  of  the  house,  under  the 
Secretary's  table,  and  all  round  and  almost  on  top  of  the 
President's  chair.  Conditions  were  reminiscent  of  a 
Crystal  Palace  Cup-Tie.  In  fact,  as  Lord  Robert  said 
afterwards,  "The  meeting  of  the  Union  at  Cambridge  was 
one  of  the  most  remarkable  I  have  ever  attended.  It  was 
crowded  to  an  extent  which  would  have  been  quite  im- 
possible if  the  audience  had  not  consisted  mainly  of  young 
and  vigorous  men." 

It  was  only  with  great  difficulty  that  the  officers  and 
speakers  were  able  to  reach  their  places.     H.R.H.  Prince 


UNION    DEBATE,   OCTOBER    1919  27 

Albert  and  H.R.H.  Prince  Henry  were  present  ;  they 
entered  the  Hall  just  before  what  is  known  as  "the  proces- 
sion," and  met  with  a  rousing  cheer. 

The  division  barriers  were  all  carried  away  and  broken 
as  if  mere  wooden  bridges  on  a  swollen  and  rushing  torrent. 

The  speeches  provided  a  dialectical  feast,  and  one  in 
which  the  best  wine  had  been  left  until  the  last.  The  speech 
of  Mr.  Morgan  was  an  admirable  one  for  the  occasion.  His 
role  was  to  present  sufficient  argument  to  be  the  foundation- 
stone  of  the  debate.  This  he  did  ;  but,  furthermore,  he 
delighted  the  House  by  a  sparkling  exhibition  from  his 
store  and  factory  of  humour.  His  speech  was  more  of  a 
firework  display  than  a  smashing  bombardment,  and  it 
has  since  been  rumoured  (and  we  think  it  is  true)  that  the 
speaker  was  indulging  in  a  practising  canter  in  the  art  of 
"stating  a  case."  Mr.  Butler  adopted  sledge-hammer 
tactics.  Point  by  point,  opposing  arguments  were  taken 
up  and  dealt  with.  If  the  debate  were  to  be  decided  by 
sheer  logic,  reasoning,  and  wealth  of  matter,  there  could 
have  been  little  room  for  doubt  as  to  the  result  of  the 
division. 

The  Duke  of  Northumberland  spoke  with  great  fluency 
and  clarity.  The  sincerity  of  his  views  could  not  be 
doubted. 

An  incident  worth  recording  occurred  in  the  reception 
room  before  the  speakers  entered  the  Debating  Hall.  As 
is  customary,  the  two  visitors  were  asked  to  sign  their 
names  in  the  Visitors'  Book.  The  Duke  was  asked  to  do  so 
first,  and  readily  agreed  ;  the  book  wa^  lying  open  on  the 
table.  Through  the  cunning  humour  of  the  Chief  Clerk, 
the  last  signature  in  the  book  was  that  of  Mr.  Robert 
Smillie.  His  Grace  sat  down  at  the  table  and  picked  up  a 
pen.  His  eye  then  caught  the  signature  of  Mr.  Smillie, 
and  he  paused.  A  sly  smile  passed  over  the  faces  in  the 
room,  but  the  Duke  dashed  off  his  signature  without 
comment. 

The  Duke's  argument  was  as  follows  :  A  nation's  first 
duty  is  defence.  Politicians  invariably  try  to  burk  their 
responsibilities  in  this  matter,  and  disaster  results.  The 
League  of  Nations  is  yet  another  of  these  politicians' 
devices.  Let  us  beware.  Let  us  arm  and  form  strong 
alliances. 

Lord  Robert  Cecil  pounced  on  this  argument,  and 
dealt  with  it  in  the  manner  of  a  wolf  towards  a  lamb.     As 


28  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

a  consequence  the  House  heard  not  a  mere  speech,  but  a 
passionate,  electrical,  stirring  appeal.  Sentence  by  sent- 
ence the  noble  lord  carried  the  House  with  him.  Members 
were  spellbound  as  by  a  wizardy  of  sheer  eloquence,  made 
the  more  inspiring  by  the  tremor  or  break  in  the  voice 
which  is  characteristic  of  Lord  Robert.  Some  will  still 
have  the  picture  of  the  tall  figure  leaning  over  the  despatch 
box,  dealing  with  the  argument  about  alliances.  With  an 
affable  smile  to  the  Duke  he  said,  "I  am  sure  the  noble  lord 
wdll  not  misunderstand  me  when  I  say  that  that  is  a  mad 
poHcy."  Or,  again,  when  he  said,  "To  describe  member- 
ship of  the  League  of  Nations  as  slavery  is  surely  to  stretch 
hyperbole  beyond  all  sense."  His  final  appeal  was 
rousing.  Youth  is  to  decide  the  issue.  "Let  Youth 
decide.  Are  we  to  drift  back  to  the  old  reign  of  force  ? 
Are  we  to  risk  not  only  the  material  destruction  of  Europe 
■ — for  that  is  what  a  new  war  would  mean — but  the  hopeless 
moral  degradation  of  never  trying  to  put  an  end  to  this 
horrible  thing  ?  Or  shall  we  not  rather  put  this  country 
at  the  head  and  let  England  show^  a  way  along  the  path 
of  improvement  and  progress  for  mankind  ?  " 

A  more  detailed  but  by  no  means  complete  account 
of  the  speeches  must  be  attempted. 

Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan  (Trinit}^),  in  proposing,  compared 
his  remarks  to  the  chirruping  of  a  sparrow.  He  defined 
war  as  a  "nasty,  uncomfortable,  and  even  dangerous 
pursuit."  The  League  of  Nations  was  a  mere  quack 
remedy  :  it  lulled  our  beliefs  with  dangerous  promises 
which  it  was  unable  to  fulfil.  Every  question — when 
under  the  League — ^would  be  whittled  down  to  one  of 
compromise,  and  certain  questions  required  a  plain 
"yea"  or  "nay,"  and  could  not  be  settled  with  a  mere 
-M— yes." 

The  Peace  terms  did  not  spring  from  a  real  and  live 
faith  in  the  potentialities  of  the  League.  How  about  the 
frontier  between  Italy  and  the  T3T0I  ?  And  had  not  the 
remodelling  of  the  map  of  Europe  proceeded  entirely  on 
strategical  lines  ?  There  is  no  effective  police  force  in  the 
League  ;  moral  suasion  is  not  enough.  We  are  up  against 
human  nature,  which  is  still  full  of  the  old  Adam.  "To 
put  our  trust  in  the  League  of  Nations  would  be  to  bury 
our  heads  in  the  sand  and  bring  upon  us  a  mountain  of 
disaster  in  the  not  distant  future." 

Some  of  Mr.  Morgan's  phrases  were  interesting  :   "the 


UNION    DEBATE,   OCTOBER    1919  29 

pious  platitudes  of  President  Wilson"  ;  "the  swollen  head 
of  a  discredited  politician  and  pseudo-loyal  leader  "  (with 
reference  to  an  Irish  leader).  "  '  God's  in  His  Heaven,  all's 
right  with  the  world  ' — ^while  I  have  the  sincerest  belief  in 
the  truth  of  the  first  proposition,  I  have  the  profoundest 
misgiving  of  the  second."  "When  old  men  dither  and 
3'oung  men  go  upon  the  Stock  Exchange." 

Mr.  J.  R.  M.  Butler  (ex- President,  Trinity)  denied  that 
the  League  of  Nations  was  responsible  for  the  distressing 
state  of  Europe.  That  present  conditions  were  serious 
was  not  denied  ;  the  Shantung  and  Tyrol  settlements  were 
both  in  disaccord  with  principle.  But  the  argument  from 
all  this  was  not  that  we  should  have  no  league,  but  that 
we  should  have  a  stronger  league. 

It  was  a  great  advance  to  arrange  for  regular  and 
periodical  meetings  of  statesmen. 

Machinery  was  set  up  for  the  revision  of  treaties,  for 
the  reduction  of  armaments,  for  the  mandatory  system 
for  an  International  Secretariat,  and  for  the  settlement 
of  disputes  before  war.  "  The  world  cannot  be  re-created 
by  mere  machinery  ;  what  the  League  will  really  live  b}^ 
is  its  spirit."  That  spirit  is  to  be  found  among  the  common 
people  of  the  world.  Success  will  only  come  by  taking  the 
long  view — "  a  great  empire  and  little  minds  go  ill 
together."  "You  cannot  settle  the  problems  of  the  20th 
century  by  the  principles  of  the  i6th  century." 

The  proposer  had  used  an  argument  about  the  im- 
mutability of  human  nature,  with  which  the  opposer  dealt. 
In  the  course  of  this  a  brilliant  repartee  is  to  be  recorded. 

The  Opposer.  "  The  Proposer  says  that  human  nature 
will  never  change." 

The  Proposer  (rising).  "  On  the  contrary,  I  said  it 
would  change  in  the  millennium." 

The  Opposer.  "  But  I  have  never  heard  that  the  truths 
of  mathematics  are  imperilled  because  straight  lines  meet 
at  infinity." 

The  alternatives  to  the  League  were  either  Bolshevism, 
the  world  revolution  of  the  proletariat,  or  the  Balance  of 
Power  which  produced  those  conflicts  which  upset  the 
fruits  of  centuries  of  peace.  The  latter  was  armed  peace, 
a  moral  and  physical  death  ;  against  these  tendencies  the 
League  would  be  a  living  and  saving  force. 

The  Duke  of  Northumberland  said  that  the  choice 
at   the   present   day    was    between   remaining  an   armed 


30  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

savage  and  becoming  a  slave,  and  he  preferred  the  former. 
The  Covenant  of  the  League  was  an  ingenious  document  ; 
it  might  be  a  fine  building,  but  was  it  founded  on  sand  or 
on  a  rock  ?  The  League  had  no  ethical,  moral,  or  religious 
basis,  while  on  the  other  hand  the  theory  of  the  Balance  of 
Power  was  only  common  sense.  The  League  erected  an 
atmosphere  of  camouflage  ;  the  balance  of  power  recognised 
a  danger  and  prepared.  The  League  was  only  another 
form  of  "Organised  Hypocrisy."  It  was  an  excuse  for  the 
Socialist  who  saw  in  it  the  germs  of  an  international  State, 
and  for  the  pacifist — who  loved  it  because  it  seemed  the 
destruction  of  militarism  ;  an  excuse  for  the  easy-going 
politicians  to  shirk  their  duties,  and  for  the  visionaries  who 
saw  in  it  the  realisation  of  their  idle  dreams. 

There  was  beginning  a  great  re-action  from  democracy 
and  mob-rule  to  autocracy.  In  preparation  for  this  we 
must  form  alHances  ;  would  it  not  be  better  to  found  the 
settlement  of  Europe  on  strategical  considerations  ? 
"The  League  is  the  best  means  ever  devised  for  obscuring 
the  necessity  for  preparing  for  war."  It  was  an  excuse 
for  avoiding  the  burden  of  national  defence.  We  had  to 
steer  between  the  Scylla  of  Germanism  and  the  Charybdis 
of  Bolshevism  ;  if  we  were  dragged  into  the  whirlpool  the 
League  would  be  at  fault. 

Lord  Robert  Cecil  received  a  magnificent  ovation  on 
rising.  He  complimented  the  Duke  on  "his  brilUant 
presentation  of  a  bad  case."  The  Duke  had  been  against 
the  League,  because  it  set  up  a  new  system  ;  but  then  he 
would  be  against  any  new  system,  whatever  it  was. 

Time  and  again  in  hi=^tory  the  common  sense  of  the 
common  people  had  been  right.  The  present  international 
system  was  intolerable  ;  almost  any  other  system  would 
be  preferable  to  it. 

We  had  had  alliances  in  the  past  ;  surely  that  was  one 
very  good  reason  why  we  should  not  have  them  again. 
The  poHcy  outlined  by  the  Duke  was  one  of  big  armies  and 
navies  ;  a  poUcy  indistinguishable  from  that  of  Germany. 
History  was  thick  with  the  fragments  of  broken  alliances; 
let  us  not  drift  back  to  that  discredited  scheme. 

There  was  no  other  alternative  but  the  League  ;  it 
was  based  on  the  principle  that  mankind  hated  war  ;  the 
tendency  to  co-operate  was  stronger  than  the  tendency  to 
fight.  Why  should  we  not  be  able  to  find  a  remedy  for 
this    horrible    thing — war  ?     The    League    was    not    the 


UNION    DEBATE,   OCTOBER    19 19  31 

millennium,  it  was  not  perfect,  but  it  was  based  on  a  recogni- 
tion of  the  fact  that  the  present  system  was  wrong.  Then 
followed  the  peroration  given  above. 

The  effect  of  this  speech  was  apparent  in  the  division 
which  followed.  This  was  taken  under  difficulties.  The 
President  had  to  appeal  to  the  forbearance  of  members  to 
ensure  a  representative  vote.  The  House  being  so  crowded 
the  Division  took  about  15  minutes.  The  result  was 
announced  shortly  before  midnight,  when  the  House  rose. 

Figures  :  For,  280  ;  Against,  723.  Majority  Against, 
443- 


Third  Debate,  Tuesday,  October  28th,   1919. 

Motion:  "  That  this  House  would  welcome  the  prohibition 
of  the  sale  of  alcoholic  liquors  in  this  country.'^ 

A  debate  in  which  members  alone  took  part  proved 
rather  refreshing  after  the  full-dress  night  of  the  previous 
w^eek.  The  motion  presented  a  clear  issue  and  embodied 
a  bold  proposition.  It  was  considered  best  to  discuss 
prohibition  itself  rather  than  any  boiled  down  and  diluted 
scheme  which  strives  to  attain  the  same  end.  Further- 
more, "Pussyfootism"  was  at  the  time  rather  in  the  lime- 
light of  popular  discussion. 

The  division  was  commented  on  by  certain  advocates 
of  a  "dry  England"  as  being  remarkable,  for  it  was  pointed 
out  that  nearly  half  those  present  voted  in  favour  of  even 
such  a  root-and-branch  measure  as  that  indicated  in  the 
terms  of  the  motion. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's)  proposed.  He  presented 
a  very  earnest  and  straightforward  case,  basing  his  argu- 
ment on  the  good  that  would  result  from  an  eradication  of 
the  obvious  evils  of  drunkenness.  From  the  point  of  view 
of  sheer  industrial  efficiency  the  motion  was  commendable  ; 
why  should  we  lag  behind  France,  Russia  and  America  ? 
The  somewhat  inadequate  argument  that  loss  of  revenue 
would  ensue  was  easily  set  off  by  the  increase  in  output 
ensured. 

The  moderate  drinker,  with  his  raving  about  "personal 
liberty,"  was  the  greatest  obstacle  to  reform.  With  such 
a  principle  in  issue  he  would  erase  the  word  "liberty"  from 
the  dictionary  and  substitute  the  word  "duty."  Finally — 
an  appeal  to  free  England  from  the  lust  and  degradation 


32  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

of  drink  ;  "hurling  out  this  hideous  evil,  so  should  we 
erase  one  dark  spot  from  England's  glorious  shield." 

Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  said  it  was  useless  to  try  to  make 
people  moral  by  Act  of  Parliament.  The  people  should 
be  educated  to  self-respect,  and  drink  w^ould  not  be  abused. 
The  best  policy  was  to  improve  the  public-houses,  and  better 
the  surroundings  of  the  people.  For  the  hard-worked 
undergraduate  "a  beakerfuU  of  the  w^arm  South  "  was  at 
times  essential. 

Mr.  T.  R.  Glover  (St.  John's,  the  Senior  Proctor),  who 
spoke  third,  was  entirely  dehghtful.  He  was  pleased  to 
renew  his  youth  of  25  years  ago  and  take  part  in  a  debate  ; 
he  found  the  House — and  its  arguments — much  the  same. 
It  was  always  the  difficulty  of  a  new  speaker  to  frame  and 
utter  a  first  sentence  ;  he  would  obviate  it,  by  not  having 
one.  He  felt  rather  like  a  Rip  Van  Winkle,  but  the 
comparison  failed,  for  he  had  not  been  asleep  ;  rather  had 
the  opposer  so  been,  for  the  world  of  enlightened  thought 
had  rolled  on  and  left  him  behind. 

Prohibition  in  America  was  an  accomplished  thing  ; 
it  was  the  outcome  of  twenty-five  years'  struggle.  The 
Americans  and  Canadians  were  new,  progressive  peoples  ; 
they  were  not  afraid  of  new  ideas.  What  was  the  result  ? 
Empty  gaols  and  workhouses,  and  people  taking  to  ice- 
cream ;  that  did  not  make  them  drunk.  In  Seattle  the 
people  banished  drink  and  went  in  for  matrimony.  Ford 
cars,  ice-cream,  and  work  on  Mondays. 

"What  is  morally  right  is  economicallj^  sound."  As  ta 
freedom — was  England  really  free  to-day  ?  Was  England 
free  when  one  could  not  get  a  hair-cut  on  a  Thursda}^ 
afternoon  ?  or  buy  butter  without  a  ticket  ?  or  smoke  in 
cap  and  gown  ?  There  must  be  restriction  of  the  individual 
for  the  good  of  the  community  ;  though  it  is  impossible  to 
make  people  good  by  Act  of  Parliament,  the  causes  of  harm 
can  be  removed. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Sheppard  (King's,  ex- President),  speaking 
fourth,  was  at  his  best,  and  those  who  know  the  Union 
know  what  that  means.  He  is  always  so  stimulating, 
because  his  argument  sounds  the  true  note  of  originality. 
The  whole  question,  he  said,  involved  the  differentiation 
between  man  and  brute.  It  was  man's  privilege  to  choose 
between  right  and  wrong  ;  in  this  lay  terrific  dangers,  but 
all  the  things  that  really  mattered  to  men  were  attended 
by  dangers.     To  be  able  to  abuse  the  good  things  of  life 


UNION   DEBATE,   OCTOBER    1919  33 

and  not  to  do  so — this  was  to  find  one's  manhood.  Prohibi- 
tion would  remove  what  helped  so  many  to  bear  lives  not 
all  sunshine.  As  to  the  choice  between  "England  Free" 
and  "England  Sober" — "I  would  have  England  free  and — 
in  moderation — sober." 

The  main  argument  of  the  last  speaker  seemed  to  have 
been  that  there  were  precedents  for  all  forms  of  tyrann}^ 
and  why  should  we  not  add  another  ? 

It  w^as  impertinent  for  three  men  to  lay  down  that  a 
fourth  should  not  have  the  choice  of  a  thing  productive  of 
both  good  and  evil  results.  Our  whole  attitude  to  life 
was  involved  ;  our  aim  should  be  to  build  up  a  country 
capable  of  using  the  finer  things  of  life  in  the  proper  way. 

There  also  spoke  :  For — Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Secretar}-), 
Rev.  W.  H.  Norman  (Caius),  Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald 
(Emmanuel),  Mr.  J.  B.  Condliffe  (Caius),  Mr.  T.  Swan 
(Emmanuel),  Mr.  T.  S.  Pedler  (Queens'),  Mr.  J.  Herman 
(Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr.  M.  L.  Berlyn  (Trinitv  Hall),  Mr. 
C.  B.  Tracey  (St.  John's),  Mr.  C.  P.  Prest  (St.  John's). 

Against — Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  A.  L. 
Sells  (Sidney),  Mr.  E.  R.  C.  Walker  (Emmanuel),  i\Ir. 
V.W.W.S.Purcell(Trinitv),Mr.B.J.B.Ezard(TrinitvHall), 
Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  H.  M.  Heckstali-Smith 
(Sidney),  Mr,  A.  V.  Burbury  (King's). 

Division  :  — Ayes,  182  ;  Noes,  205.  Majority  Against, 
23.     House  adjourned  11.50  p.m. 


Fourth  Debate^  Tuesday,  November  4th,  19 19. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  zvoiild  welcome  an  immediaie 
return  to  the  system  of  Party  Govcrtiment." 

The  debate  did  not  prove  as  successful  as  previous  ones 
in  the  term  had  been,  though  it  produced  twenty-two 
speeches,  including  a  few  "maidens."  Perhaps  the  issue 
was  not  sufficiently  clearly  defined.  The  motion  met  with 
the  following  criticism,  "What  else  have  we  got  at  present 
but  Party  Government  ?  "  A  suggestion  was  made  that 
members  would  say  the^^  belonged  to  the  "No-Party  Party." 
However,  the  debate  wa'^  fought  on  two  issues  :  (i)  is  there 
any  alternative  to  the  j^arty  system  of  Government  ? 
(2)  has  the  present  Coalition  outlived  its  usefulness  ? 


34  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  N.  G.  Dunning  (Peterhouse),  in  proposing,  con- 
fessed his  dislike  of  the  Government,  who  had  obtained 
office  under  very  suspicious  circumstances.  Mr.  Lloyd 
George  was  a  man  sent  from  God  for  a  time  of  great  national 
emergency  ;  he  had  now  fallen  into  bad  company.  The 
present  Government  was  a  strange  administration  of 
political  opportunists.  In  a  Coalition  there  were  two 
walls,  two  organisations  and  two  purposes.  How  many 
reforms  had  been  accomplished  since  the  Election  ?  There 
was  no  real  opposition  in  the  present  House  of  Commons, 
which  body  was  not  even  respected.  The  speaker  con- 
cluded with  a  plea  for  the  Labour  Party,  to  enable  whose 
return  he  urged  the  renewal  of  Party  Government. 

Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney)  opposed.  Party  Government 
w^as  like  a  house  divided  against  itself  ;  it  gave  us  weak 
government.  Liberalism  had  in  the  past  given  birth  to  a 
viper  which  was  concealed  in  the  Coalition  cradle  during 
the  war.  The  party  system  nullified  democracy  ;  the 
people  simply  became  penned  in  two  or  three  compartments. 
The  closure,  unconsidered  legislation  and  the  like — these 
were  its  fruits.  A  party  government  simply  pampered  ; 
it  placed  its  own  popularity  before  everything.  Under 
the  pampering  the  people  became  bilious,  and  now  the 
Coalition  had  the  thankless  task  of  administering  the 
medicine.  The  real  dominant  instinct  in  man  was  co- 
operation for  good.  If  we  became  divided  at  this  time, 
our  country  must  go  down  at  breakneck  speed  into  the 
valley  of  destruction. 

Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  (Selwyn),  who  spoke  third,  began 
his  speech  in  a  startling  manner.  The  hon.  opposer's 
speech,  he  said,  had  left  him  cold  ;  in  fact  he  felt  as  if  he 
had  just  left  a  hot  and  clammy  greenhouse.  It  was 
essential  to  efficiency  to  have  change  ;  without  it,  there 
was  weariness,  slackness,  and  morbidness.  A  democracy 
can  only  be  ruled  on  party  lines.  The  only  choice  was, 
first,  an  autocracy;  second,  a  Coalition;  or  thirdl}'', 
a  Soviet.  The  doom  of  the  first  was  sealed  when  tottering 
thrones  had  fallen  like  ninepins  ;  a  coalition  tried  to  please 
all  and  succeeded  in  pleasing  none  ;  the  condemnation  of 
the  Soviet  was  written  by  the  bleeding  heart  of  Russia. 
Therefore,  let  us  return  to  our  party  system.  Do  not 
accept  unity  at  the  expense  of  efficiency.  Mr.  Strong  gave 
us  good  measure  in  alliteration  and  metaphor,  though  at 
times  he  was  a  little  strained. 


UNION    DEBATE,   NOVEMBER    1919  35 

Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel)  showed  himself  a 
cunning  debater  by  reminding  the  House  that  opposition 
to  the  motion  did  not  necessarily  involve  support  of  the 
Coalition.  Much  was  lost  by  confining  a  man  to  one  party ; 
it  was  often  the  case  that  onl}^  one  item  of  a  Party  pro- 
gramme was  believed  in,  and  yet  the  whole  would  have 
to  be  voted  for.  Under  the  Party  system,  a  debate  in  the 
House  of  Commons  was  a  mere  farce.  The  Opposition 
could  only  defeat  the  Government  by  a  "  snap  division  " 
— organised  buffoonery.  Politicians  put  their  party  before 
their  country.  Each  political  issue  ought  to  be  judged  on 
its  merits,  but  under  the  party  S3^stem  this  was  impossible. 

There  also  spoke  For — Mr.  S.  C.  Morgan  (Trinity), 
Mr.  G,  G.  Sharp  (FitzwilHam  Hall),  Mr.  A.  Henderson 
(Trinity  Hall),  Mr.  P.  J.  Griffiths  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  E.  E. 
Edwards  (Downing),  Mr.  R.  W.  Perry  (Peterhouse), 
Mr.  W,  D.  Johnston  (Christ's),  Mr.  E.  W.  Sampson  (Corpus), 
Mr.  D.  Morris  (Christ's),  Mr.  T.  S.  Pedler  (Queens'). 

Against — Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel,  Vice- 
President),  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten  (Christ's),  Mr.  G.  G. 
Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke),  Mr.  G.  G.  Phillips  (Trinity), 
Mr.  D.  D.  Warren  (Corpus),  Mr.  H.  V.  Barran  (Trinity), 
Mr.  J.  Herman  (Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury 
<King's). 

Division: — Ayes,  137;    Noes,  155.     Majority  Against. 


Fifth  Debate,  Tuesday,  November  nth,  1919. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  would  welcome  a  levy  on 
capital.'^ 

It  was  with  some  misgiving  that  the  above  motion  was 
set  down.  Though  the  question  of  our  national  indebted- 
ness and  finance  is  not  one  that  is  shirked  by  our  demobi- 
lised Demosthenes  and  embryo-politician,  it  yet  remains 
one  that  presents  difficulties  for  an  academic  discussion — 
especially  on  a  cold  November  night  with  blazing  bonfires 
outside  flashing  out  the  call  to  join  in  Armistice  anniversary 
celebrations.  However,  the  experiment  was  a  success. 
In  spite  of  a  most  illuminating  exposition  by  a  young  and 
rising  Labour  member,  the  cause  of  a  levy  was  lost. 

Mr.  J.  B.  Condliffe  (Caius)  proposed.  In  welcoming 
his  supporter — Mr.  W.  Graham — he  remarked  on  the  well- 


36  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

known  financial  abilities  of  Scotsmen.  (The  Kaffirs  called 
a  florin  a  "Scotsman,"  because  Scotsmen  invariably  tried 
to  palm  them  off  as  half-crowns  !)  Our  present  financial 
position  was  undoubtedly  very  serious  ;  expenditure  was 
in  excess  of  revenue.  Expenditure,  and  not  a  levy  on 
capital,  was  the  more  likely  to  cut  down  the  tree  of  national 
prosperity.  The  great  advantage  of  a  levy  was  that  not 
only  debt,  but  also  interest,  was  wiped  off  ;  in  this  way 
income  tax — working  so  hardly  on  the  middle  classes — - 
could  be  reduced.  A  levy  on  capital  would  really  be  one 
on  property,  or  on  wealth,  and  would  be  paid  by  the 
people  with  wealth.  It  could  probably  be  arranged  so 
as  to  be  paid  out  of  income.  Harsh  cases  there  would  be,, 
but  could  that  be  avoided  under  any  system  ?  Induce- 
ments to  save  would  not  be  removed,  foi  the  scheme  was 
not  to  be  a  recurring  one.  The  choice — one  of  pure 
economic  expediency — lay  between  an  immediate  sacrifice 
and  years  of  crushing  taxation.  Let  us  lose  the  tooth  by 
extraction  rather  than  suffer  long-drawn-out  agony. 

The  opposer,  Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's),  said  he 
first  wished  to  dispel  the  dialectical  fog  created  by  the 
proposer.  The  argument  that  the  levy  could  be  paid  out 
of  income  was  a  specious  one  ;  but  among  the  class  of  small 
manufacturers,  one  year's  income  was  probably  capitalised 
the  next.  It  was  impossible  to  draw  this  line  between 
income  and  capital.  The  levy  was  a  short-sighted  policy 
that  glittered  in  the  eyes  of  the  working  classes.  It  was  a 
dangerous  precedent  ;  as  w^e  could  not  bind  subsequent 
parliaments  we  could  not  be  certain  that  the  experiment 
would  not  be  repeated — as  had  happened  with  income  tax. 
It  involved  suspicion,  and  a  feeling  of  financial  insecurity, 
which  were  fatal  to  industry.  To  take  away  capital  was 
to  make  Labour  less  efficient.  Our  present  remedy  was 
increased  production  ;  premium  bonds,  and  an  Empire 
contribution  were  worth  consideration. 

Mr.  W.  Graham,  M.P.  for  Central  Edinburgh,  speaking 
third,  complained  of  the  Government's  error  during  the 
war  in  making  extravagant  financial  offers.  However,  the 
Socialists  did  not  advocate  a  repudiation  of  the  National 
Debt.  The  material  and  knowledge  on  Vv^hich  to  base  a 
levy  could  be  easily  obtained.  As  to  the  feeling  of  in- 
security that  it  was  thought  might  be  engendered,  this 
would  largely  be  set  off  by  the  length  of  notice  that  would 
be  given,  as  also  by  the  period  over  which  payment  might 


UNION   DEBATE,   NOVEMBER    1919  37 

he  made.  It  was  not  proposed  to  touch  the  capital  of 
individuals  possessing  less  than  ;^5,ooo  ;  for  these  there 
would  be  merely  a  graduated  income  tax.  Of  the  fortunes 
made  by  trusts,  and  combines,  there  was  a  vast  amount 
that  could  rightly  be  taken. 

The  country  could  best  recover  from  the  shock  of  a 
capital  levy  now  while  Europe  Vv'as  in  so  dire  a  strait  ; 
other  countries  were  approaching  the  question.  The 
proposal  did  not  involve  "a  national  pawnshop"  in  White- 
hall ;  it  was  not  a  crazy  idea  of  Labour  politicians,  but  in 
every  way  a  thoroughl}"  "respectable  proposition."  "We 
may  be  Scotsmen,  but  we  ought  to  pay  our  debts  quickly." 

When  an  opportunity  presented  itself  to  pay  off  a  debt 
it  was  onlv  wise  and  statesmanlike  to  do  so,  and  therefore 
we  should  now  be  willing  to  make  the  sacrifice.  Mr. 
Graham  was  clear,  concise,  and  convincing. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Ramsbottom  (Emmanuel,  ex- President) 
followed.  Capital  was  that  part  of  wealth  that  could 
produce  more  wealth.  It  had  been  claimed  for  a  levy 
that  it  would  obviate  the  necessity  of  paying  interest  on 
our  debt  ;  how  would  this  be  so  if  collection  of  the  levy 
were  to  be  spread  over  a  number  of  years  ?  The  levy 
would  put  the  rate  of  exchange  against  us,  would  take 
money  from  industry  and  hinder  production,  would  make 
the  government  a  huge  stockholder,  and  introduce  the 
undesirable  alien  financier.  Human  capital  was  dis- 
regarded, and  with  unrealisable  capital  the  difficulties  were 
insuperable. 

Our  serious  debt  was  that  owed  abroad.  This  would 
only  be  wiped  off  by  increased  production. 

To  levy  on  War  Bonds  would  be  a  breach  of  faith  ; 
our  best  and  fairest  tax  was  that  on  income  with  excess 
duties  on  war  profits. 

Dr.  G.  P.  Bidder  (Trinity)  urged  payment  now  when 
it  could  be  done  in  "Bradbur^^'s"  rather  than  fifty  years 
hence,  when  it  would  have  to  be  in  gold. 

There  also  spoke  : — For — Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity), 
Hall),  Mr.  F.  W.  Paish  (Trinity),  Mr.  F.  E.  Lawley  (Fitz- 
william  Hall). 

Against — Mr.  H.  V.  F.  Barran  (Trinity),  Mr.  G.  W. 
Theobald  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel), 
Mr.  J.  E.  Allen  (Wadham,  Oxford). 

Division  : — For,  123  ;  Against,  135.  Majority  Against, 
12. 


38  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Sixth  Debate,  Tuesday,  November  i8th,  1919. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  would  deplore  any  serious 
reduction  in  the  expenditure  of  this  country  on  armaments 
in  the  near  future.'^ 

Demosthenes  having  been  engaged  in  the  war,  his  views 
on  armaments  were  worth  attention.  Of  yore  he  was  told, 
"Prepare  for  war  and  so — ensure  peace."  His  own  ideas 
proved  different  :  "Prepare  for  war,  and  it  is  sure  to  come." 
Armaments  are  the  toys  of  imperiahstic  nations  ;  no 
matter  how  dangerous  they  are,  they  will  certainly  be  used. 

The  debate  proved  one  of  the  best  in  the  term.  Perhaps 
it  ought  to  be  said  that  the  subject  was  suggested  by 
Lord  Louis  Mountbatten,  R.N.,  who  made  his  first  appear- 
ance on  the  paper.  The  attendance  was  large,  and  all  the 
speeches  were  interesting.  H.R.H.  Prince  Albert  and 
H.R.H.  Prince  Henry  were  present,  and  occupied  seats 
on   the  cross-benches. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel,  Secretary)  proposed.  He 
claimed  that  support  of  his  motion  was  not  incompatible 
with  a  belief  in  the  League  of  Nations,  but  the  possibility 
of  trouble  in  the  near  future  had  to  be  faced.  "We  must 
keep  up  our  defences  until  the  great  day  when  there  will 
be  no  more  armies."  By  reducing  armaments  now  we 
would  jeopardise  the  future  of  the  League. 

Alluding  to  the  past  few  years,  he  said  that  there  was 
one  idea  deep-rooted  and  set  in  the  minds  of  all — ^"  whatever 
happens  we  wdll  not  have  any  more  of  that  war."  By 
keeping  strong  we  would  ward  it  off  until  the  League  was 
securely  established. 

Were  we  to  keep  faith  with  the  peoples  of  our  Empire, 
or  were  we  to  run  risks  for  the  sake  of  our  owm  pockets  ? 
We  were  not  in  so  parlous  a  condition  that  reduction  was 
necessary.  As  "business  men"  w'e  must  face  this  proposi- 
tion. We  must  show  ourselves  to  be  the  great  power 
behind  the  League. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse),  in  opposing,  said  that 
if  preparation  for  war  was  a  security  against  it,  then  the 
world  of  August,  1914,  should  have  been  the  most  thoroughly 
peaceful  world  that  ever  existed.  Our  proposed  peace 
army  was  twice  the  size  of  our  pre-war  army  ;  our  Navy 
was  still  large,  though — the  German  Navy  having  gone — 
the  need  for  it  no  longer  existed. 

We  would   not   effect   any   real   economy   merely   by 


UNION    DEBATE,    NOVEMBER    19 19  39 

dismissing  a  few  "dug-outs"  and  "flappers"  from  White- 
hall ;  if  expense  was  not  curtailed  the  progress  of  our 
country  would  be  that  of  "the  Gadarene  swine"  ;  the 
Treasury  bench  still  seemed  to  be  infected  with  the  microbe 
of  "wait  and  see." 

Armaments  must  depend  on  policy.  Yet  look  at  our 
Russian  complications,  and  the  promiscuous  land-grabbing 
in  the  East.  We  paid  official  lip-service  to  the  League  of 
Nations  and  conducted  our  policy  as  if  our  signature  had 
never  been  appended.  Reduction  was  the  acid  test  of  our 
sincerity  in  the  League.  "If  we  allow  the  League  to  fail, 
and  return  to  the  polic}^  of  piling  up  armaments, the  blame 
will  be  on  us  and  the  penalty  on  our  children.  Are  we,  by 
our  own  carelessness  and  inertia,  to  lose  this  opportunity 
which  is  now  given  to  us  and  which  may  never  return — 
the  opportunity  which  our  dead  won  and  which  was  conse- 
crated by  their  blood  ?  " 

Sub-Lieut.  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten,  R.N.  (Christ's), 
replying  to  the  arguments  of  the  last  speaker,  said  that 
had  we  not  been  in  some  way  prepared  for  war  in  19 14,  w^e 
would  probably  not  be  present  to  discuss  the  motion  at  all. 
As  to  expense,  its  increase  was  not  disproportionate  to  the 
rise  in  prices  ;  the  cost  of  material  had  risen,  and  so  had 
wages,  especially  on  the  lower  deck  ;  was  that  dis- 
approved ?  Again,  if  we  were  to  have  more  merchant 
ships  we  must  have  protection  for  them. 

He  admired  Lord  Fisher  and  his  policy,  but  only  one 
person  existed  who  could  carry  out  that  policy — Lord 
Fisher.  Lord  Fisher  once  told  the  Chancellor  of  the 
Exchequer  that  if  he  took  over  the  Exchequer  he  could 
reduce  the  income  tax  to  2|d.  in  the  £.  As  Lord  Fisher 
had  not  taken  on  the  job,  it  could  not  be  done. 

It  had  been  said  that  there  was  no  use  for  foreign 
policy  backed  up  by  the  mailed  fist.  To  such  an  argument 
he  would  not  reply  with  flowery  language,  but  with  one 
word — "tripe."  [This  somewhat  expressive  colloquialism 
can  hardly  be  called  "parliamentary"  language  ;  its  effect 
when  used — probably  because  so  unusual  and  unexpected — 
was  electric,  and  the  House  rocked  with  laughter.  The 
President  did  not  call  the  noble  lord  to  order,  however  ; 
to  have  done  so  under  the  circumstances  would  have  been 
in  the  nature  of  an  anti-cUmax.] 

Foreign  policy  without  a  backing  force  was  mere 
lunacy  ;   to  adopt  such  would  be  to  make  us  not  a  leading 


40  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

power,  but  a  leading  jester  of  the  world.  At  present  we 
were  paying  premiums  into  a  very  old  Insurance  Society. 
Until  the  rival  societ}^  was  established  we  must  continue 
to  do  so.  When  once  the  League  of  Nations  was  secure,  we 
should  turn  our  fleet — lock,  stock  and  barrel — to  work 
with  it. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel)  took  an  unexpected 
line  of  argument.  Advocating  an  effective  Navy, 
and  condemning  the  League  of  Nations,  the  speaker's 
opposition  was  based  on  a  desire  for  the  reduction  of 
wasteful  expenditure.  He  said  he  loved  the  good  old 
British  Navy,  but  he  hated  the  Admiralty.  For  ovei  a 
year  he  had  been  trying  to  get  some  money  they  owed  him. 
The  Navy  ought  not,  however,  to  cost  as  much  as  it  did  at 
present.  Against  whom  were  we  maintaining  it  ?  There 
were  only  three  adequate  fleets  in  existence — ours,  the 
American  and  the  Japanese.  Between  the  latter  two 
there  was  a  balance  of  power — a  greater  safeguard  than 
the  intolerable  system  of  a  League  of  Nations. 

He  had  just  returned  from  a  place  on  the  outskirts  of 
the  Empire  where  every  Englishman  was  an  ardent 
Imperialist,  and  he  was  surprised  at  the  present  Labour 
and  Socialist  tendencies  in  England.  "  A  Labour  Govern- 
ment and  an  Empire  are  two  incompatible  things."  To 
prevent  the  swing  of  the  pendulum  over  to  Labour  we 
must  have  a  reduction  in  expenditure. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke)  said  that  the 
League  of  Nations  was  a  "possibility,  but  not  a  proba- 
bility." Any  reduction  of  our  support  to  the  colonies 
would  start  "the  rift  in  the  lute  of  Empire." 

Mr.  J.  H.  Richardson  (Emmanuel)  urged  that  reduc- 
tion was  possible,  at  least  in  the  near  future. 

There  also  spoke  :  For — Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's), 
Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel),  Sub-Lieut.  R.  H.  Donnell 
(Trinity),  Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's),  Mr.  H.  M. 
Yeatman  (Pembroke),  Mr.  D.  H.  Steers  (St.  John's), 
Mr.  R.  E.  Watson  (St.  Catharine's). 

Against— Mr.  \M.  W.  Pryke  (Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr. 
E.  L.  Davison  (St.  John's),  Mr.  D.L.  Thornton  (Magdalene), 
Mr.  J.  Herman  (Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr.  W.  L.  Runciman 
(Trinity),  Mr.  H.  L.  Wilson  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  F.  E.  Lawley 
(Fitzwilliam  Hall). 

Division  : — For,  178  ;  Against,  214.  Majoritv  Against, 
36. 


UNION   DEBATE,    NOVEMBER    19 19  41 

Seventh  Debate,  Tuesday,  November  25th,  19 19. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  welcomes  the  policy  of  Non- 
Intervention  in  Russia." 

The  live  and  burning  questions,  the  topical  subjects, 
invariablv  provide  the  best  material  for  good  speeches  and 
useful  debates.  Bolshevism  on  this  occasion  acted  as 
excellent  eloquence — fodder,  and  Lenin  as  a  suitable  butt 
for  witticisms  and  declamation.  Twenty-four  speeches 
were  delivered,  and  even  as  midnight  approached  there 
must  have  been  quite  fifteen  who  had  failed  to  catch  the 
President's  eye. 

Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel,  Vice-President) 
proposed.  Bolshevism  was,  he  said,  the  greatest  menace 
of  modern  times  ;  he  would  rather  lose  his  motion  than 
have  the  support  of  a  single  Bolshevist.  Trotsky  was 
originally  a  cinematograph  actor  ;  perhaps  he  saw  a 
glorious  chance  of  acting  a  film.  Some  supporters  of 
Bolshevism  were  pure  idealists,  others  were  pure  scoundrels. 

What  were  the  suggested  grounds  of  intervention  ? 
There  were  two  main  reasons — the  German  menace  and 
considerations  of  humanity.  As  to  the  first,  the  only 
consequence  of  our  interference  would  be  to  drive  Russia 
straight  into  the  arms  of  Germany.  We  had  set  up  certain 
independent  buffer  states  on  the  Baltic  coast  ;  how,  then, 
could  we  support  Kolchak,  Deniken,  and  Yudenitch,  who 
all  stood  for  a  united  Russia  ? 

If  we  intervened  on  the  grounds  of  humanity,  where 
were  we  going  to  stop  ?  Were  we  to  be  the  knight-errant 
of  the  world  and  ride  about  like  a  Don  Quixote  ?  Must 
we  intervene  wherever  there  was  suffering  ?  Should 
America  interfere  in  Ireland  ? 

What  Russia  wanted  was  not  intervention,  but  peace. 
If  we  launched  a  campaign  in  Russia  to  exterminate 
Bolshevism,  was  there  not  the  risk  of  raising  it  in  our  own 
country  ?  The  only  nation  that  could  solve  the  Russian 
problem  was  Russia  herself. 

Mr.  A.  C.  Thompson  (Trinity  Hall),  in  opposing,  said 
that  before  the  war  the  walls  of  Tzarism  barred  (ierman3^'s 
road  eastwards;  those  walls  had  now  crumbled  away. 
The  Prussian  spirit  and  Bolshevism  might  go  hand-in- 
hand  and  be  a  menace  to  our  Eastern  Empire.  A 
Bolshevist  feeler  was  already  spreading  and  threatening 
to  sap  the  vitality  of  the  democracies  of  the  world.  Recent 
revolutionary  strikes  were  nothing  less  than  Bolshevism. 


42  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

He  was  opposed  to  recognition  of  Bolshevism.  We 
should  intervene  to  clear  the  world  of  a  scourge.  The 
only  alternative  to  intervention  was  "to  shake  hands  with 
murder." 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall)  confessed  himself  an 
opponent  of  Bolshevism  ;  as  a  political  creed  it  was  the 
negation  of  democracy  and  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of 
libert}^  and  freedom.  Its  horrors  and  atrocities  were  not 
denied,  but  did  the  Whites  never  commit  atrocities  ? 
Before  the  war  did  we  lift  a  finger  to  assist  those  afflicted 
by  the  tyranny  of  Tzardom  ? 

The  Soviet  Government  had  effected  a  large  number  of 
sound  measures  of  social  reform. 

We  had  already  spent  about  lOO  million  pounds  on 
intervention,  and  yet  our  Government  left  thousands 
destitute  by  stopping  the  unemployment  dole. 

Intervention  could  not  be  justified  on  grounds  of 
expediency,  principle,  or  national  advantage.  The  salva- 
tion of  Russia  lay  with  the  Russian  masses  ;  our  policy 
should  be  to  bring  the  contending  and  disruptive  elements 
together. 

Mr.  A.  V.  BuRBURY  (King'>),  speaking  fourth,  had  the 
advantage  over  other  speakers  of  personal  experience,  hav- 
ing during  the  latter  part  of  the  war  been  imprisoned  in 
Russia.  He  considered  it  was  England's  duty  to  help 
Russia  ;  it  would  be  dangerous  not  to  do  so.  Let  us  show 
human  sympathy  with  the  affairs  of  Russia,  and  avoid 
taking  our  politics  in  the  tabloid  form  of  catch  phrases. 

It  was  impossible  to  trust  the  Russian  "moujik"  until 
we  understood  him.  The  Russians  had  just  evolved  from 
feudal  repression  ;  they  possessed  the  perfectly  useless 
idealism  of  children  and  young  men  educated  with  faulty 
chunks  of  knowledge  ! 

We  should  assist  Russia  to  eradicate  the  bad  element 
in  Bolshevism,  and  in  doing  this  we  should  render  her  real 
help  in  this  time  of  tribulation. 

There  also  spoke  :  For — Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peter- 
house),  Mr.  E.  A.  B.  Pritchard  (King's),  Mr.  R.  K.  Wilson 
(Trinity  Hall),  Mr.  F.  W.  Paish  (Trinity),  Mr.  P.  J.  Griffiths 
(Peterhouse),  Mr.  V.  S.  Ram  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  Abdul  Aziz 
(Fitzwilliam  Hall),  Mr.  M.  H.  Dobb  (Pembroke),  Mr.  C.  G. 
Funnell  (Sidney),  Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  (Selwyn),  Mr.  R. 
Northam  (Queens'). 


UNION    DEBATE,   NOVEMBER    1919  43 

Againsi— Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney),  Mr.  I.  M.  Horobin 
(Sidney),  Sub-Lieut.  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten  (Christ's), 
Mr.  L.  E.  Room  (Corpus),  Mr.  T.  A.  Bold  (Corpus),  Mr. 
H.  V.  A.  Raikes  (Trinitv).  Mr.  L  Macpherson  (Trinitv), 
Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St^  John's),  Mr.  R.  E.  Watson  (St. 
Catharine's). 

Division  : — Ayes,  218  ;    Noes,  132.     Majority  For,  86. 


Change    of    Officers'    Debate,    Tuesday, 
December    2nd,    1919. 

At  a  Change  of  Officers'  Debate  the  retiring  President 
first  takes  the  chair  as  usual,  and  the  result  of  the  poll  is 
read  out  by  him.  This  invariably  provides  mild  excite- 
ment, the  various  names  being  greeted  with  cheers.  On 
this  occasion  the  election  for  the  Secretaryship  was  con- 
ducted on  the  system  of  a  single  transferable  vote,  for 
which  a  progressive  Union  democracy  had  legislated 
during  the  term. 

The  poll  was  announced  as  follows  :— 
President :  Mr.   G.   H.   Shakespeare  (Emmanuel),   elected 

unopposed. 
Vice-President :  Mr.    D.    M.    Reid    (Emmanuel),    elected 

unopposed. 
Secretary  :  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse). 
Committee  :  Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke). 
Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 
Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's). 
Sub-Lieut.  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten  (Christ's). 
Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel). 
Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall). 
After  the  results  have  been  read  through  twice  (the 
second    being    the    official    declaration    of    election),    the 
President  calls  on  the  newly-elected  officers  to  take  their 
seats.     The  President  himself  takes  his  successor  by  the 
right  hand  and  installs  him  in  his  chair,   after  which  he 
descends  to  his  place  on  the  floor  of  the  House. 

The  newly-elected  Secretary  then  proceeds  to  move 
a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  retiring  officers,  and  indulges  in  as 
much  mild  scandal  as  he  can  discover  or  invent. 

In  performing  this  office,  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham,  the  new 
Secretary,  said  that  retiring  presidents  had  alvviiys  been 
described    as    "impartial     and    just/'    vice-presidents    as 

E 


44  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

"energetic  and  capable,"  secretaries  as  "hard-working  and 
indefatigable."  He  considered  that  the  ex-president  was 
endowed  with  the  seven  deadly  virtues. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge,  in  seconding,  made  a  little 
reference  to  some  "seat  above  the  clock,"  and  warmty 
eulogised  the  Chief  Clerk,  Mr.  Stanley  Brown. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (Trinity  Hall,  retiring  President), 
replied.  He  considered  it  a  most  trying  ordeal  after 
enjoying  a  power  more  autocratic  than  a  Lenin  for  a  whole 
year.  The  proposer  and  seconder  had  relied  on  their 
memory  for  their  humour  and  their  imagination  for  their 
facts.  He  thanked  the  Society  for  the  honour  they  had 
done  him.  There  were  two  classes  of  men — those  who 
were  found  out,  and  those  who  were  not  ;  he  was  a  fortu- 
nate individual  in  the  latter  class. 

Mr,  J.  W.  Morris  (Trinity  Hall,  retiring  President) 
then  moved,  "  That  this  House  desires  to  record  its 
continued  confidence  in  His  Majesty's  Government."  He 
declared  himself  an  ardent  supporter  of  the  long-suffering 
Coahtion  Government,  led  by  his  distinguished  compatriot. 
Recent  events  had  proved  the  wisdom  of  holding  the 
General  Election  in  191 8  ;  for  in  recent  months  there  had 
been  chaos  and  unrest  in  the  country. 

What  had  the  Government  achieved  ?  They  had  been 
more  busy  than  even  the  Divorce  Courts  of  this  country. 
In  their  first  session  they  had  achieved  more  than  previous 
Parliaments  in  their  whole  existence.  Demobilisation, 
Peace  Treaty,  Transport,  Housing,  Health,  Labour  Con- 
ditions— all  these  had  been  dealt  with.  A  financial  deficit 
was  admitted  ;  but  just  as  a  boat  in  shooting  past  the 
winning  post  is  quite  unable  to  pull  up  immediately,  so  it 
was  impossible  at  once  to  return  to  normal  pre-war  expen- 
diture. 

Mr.  Llo3^d  George  had  been  criticised  as  a  man  who 
made  startling  political  nose-dives,  but  who  invariably 
managed  to  straighten  out  before  the  crash.  Alone  of 
Ministers  in  Europe  he  had  been  in  ofiice  since  1906. 
The  Prime  Minister  might  3^et  prove  the  Androcles 
who  would  take  the  thorn  of  Irish  dissension  from  the 
foot  of  the  British  Lion. 

Press  criticism  was  not  representative.  Lord  North- 
cliffe  used  to  attack  Mr.  Lloyd  George  for  promising 
ninepence  for  fourpence,  and  yet  did  not  scruple  every  day 
to  offer  one  penn5rw^orth  for  threepence. 


UNION   DEBATE,   DECEMBER    1919  45 

What  were  the  alternatives  ?  Labour  had  married 
direct  action  ;  he  prayed  for  a  speedy  divorce.  Labour 
trampled  on  the  rights  of  others  in  their  short-cuts  to  the 
Millennium.  The  Liberal  rump  ?  Not  yet.  The  main 
opposition  to  the  present  Government  consisted  of  dis- 
gruntled Liberals,  unsohdified  Socialists,  and  for  the  rest 
critics,  cynics,  and  Bolshevists. 

Unit}^,  trust,  and  loyalty  would  alone  enable  us  to 
carry  through  the  measures  of  reform  to  which  we  were  in 
sacred  duty  pledged,  and  make  this  country  which  we  loved 
the  greatest  and  truest  among  the  peoples  of  the  world. 

Mr.  S.  C.  Roberts  (Pembroke,  ex- Librarian),  in 
opposing,  maintained  that  if  they  applied  the  test  of  trust- 
worthiness the  Government  failed.  Sometimes  they  went 
to  the  House  with  a  considered  policy  and  threw  it  to  the 
wolves  of  chance  debate.  In  finance  and  administration 
the  Government  were  inconsistent  ;  their  switchback 
policy  might  be  very  exciting,  but  it  did  not  inspire 
confidence. 

The  argument  of  the  hon.  proposer  could  be  summed  up 
in  the  phrase,  "Don't  shoot  the  man  at  the  piano — he's 
doing  his  best."  He,  personally,  had  no  murderous 
intentions  against  that  Coalition  orchestra  of  coupon- 
holders  which  played  a  rather  fitful  obligato. 

The  present  Government  had  no  clear  policy  of  re- 
construction. It  had  tried  to  patch  up  the  old  society, 
when  it  had  a  chance  of  building  a  new  one.  During  the 
war  we  had  been  promised  that  the  Lion  of  Labour  would 
lie  down  with  the  Capitalistic  Lamb,  but  the  realities  of 
peace  had  shattered  the  illusions  of  war.  The  present 
Government  showed  no  sympathy  with  the  movement  for 
a  new  social  order  ;  it  was  a  mere  patchwork  of  compromise 
and  contradiction. 

Mr.  J.  H.  B.  NiHiLL  (Emmanuel,  ex- President),  in 
supporting  the  motion,  regretted  that  his  presence  was 
consequent  on  the  inability  of  members  of  the  Government 
to  be  present  to  speak.  Fed  from  early  youth  on  the  pure 
milk  of  Liberalism,  he  had  no  desire  to  return  to  the 
conditions  of  1914  ;  the  Coalition  spirit  was  needed. 
There  was  no  alternative  government.  We  had  just 
emerged  from  an  earthquake — the  most  stupendous 
catastrophe  that  had  ever  come  upon  mankind.  We  were 
still  half  covered  with  the  debris,  and  yet  people  told  us  in 
the  sacred  name  of  party  to  refuse  the  proffered  help  of 


46  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

our  fellow  survivors.  We  wanted  a  strong  and  stable 
government.  Labour  was  the  party  of  a  section.  The 
scattered  elements  of  Liberalism  were  under  the  leadership 
of  one  who  showed  no  desire  to  re-enter  the  House,  and  who 
resembled  the  Duke  of  Plaza  Toro. 

Mr.  Robert  Young,  M.P.  for  Newton,  spoke  fourth. 
He  declared  himself  the  representative  of  the  new  party 
that  would  very  soon  provide  an  alternative  government. 
The  present  Government  had  come  into  power  by  means 
of  the  greatest  political  joke  ever  played.  On  the  day  it 
was  born  it  was  entitled  to  no  confidence,  and  since  then 
it  had  engendered  nothing  but  unrest.  The  Premier 
himself  had  a  sound  programme,  but  both  his  courage 
and  his  supporters  failed  him. 

The  Coalition  majority  had  been  secured  by  appeals 
to  national  prejudice,  and  under  a  representative  system 
of  election  it  would  never  have  been  obtained  ;  the 
Government  had  one  hundred  seats  too  many,  and  there 
were  sixty  minority  representatives. 

The  Government  had  failed  in  industry,  in  foreign 
policy  and  in  finance.  Witness  the  present  coal  and 
railway  muddles,  the  unemployment  scandal,  and  the 
Russian  tangle.  The  policy  seemed  to  be  to  allow  the 
bottom  dog  to  remain  in  his  position,  and,  if  needs  be,  to 
keep  him  there.  The  Government  hoped  by  its  muddles 
to  prove  the  impracticability  of  the  principle  of  nationalisa- 
tion. 

We  wanted  a  government  which  would  build  up  its 
policy  on  ethical  principles  ;  which  would  say  that  it 
was  going  to  put  society  on  a  better  basis  than  ever  before, 
a  social  order  in  which,  without  anybody  having  too 
much,  every  honest  man  would  have  enough. 

Division  : — Ayes,  205  ;  Noes,  141.  Motion  carried 
by  61  votes. 

This  concluded  the  business  of  the  term. 

Criticisms. 

Abraham,  L.  A.  (Peterhouse)  Undoubtedly  a  great  debater. 
Is  one  of  the  few  who  studies  the  mode  of  presenting 
his  case.  His  phrases  are  captivating.  When  he 
uses  his  Gaelic  eloquence  it  is  a  treat  to  listen  to  him. 

Arundel,  E.  S.  (Corpus)  So  far  as  criticism  can  be  based 
on  one  speech,  ours  is  a  favourable  one. 


CRITICISMS  47 

Aziz,  Abdul  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Is  keen  and  persevering. 
Speaks  fluently,  but  is  a  trifle  heavy. 

Barnes,  J.  H.  (St.  John's)  One  of  our  ideahsts.  Has 
an  easy,  fluent  style.  Is  a  little  too  fond  of  Brer 
Fox.  Probably  he  is  more  cut  out  to  be  a  bishop 
than  a  Cabinet  Minister.  A  sugar  coating  of 
humour  would  make  the  pill  of  didactic  reasoning 
easier  to  swallow. 

Barran,  H.  V.  F.  (Trinity)  Has  always  good  material, 
but  his  delivery  is  too  restrained  and  uniform. 

Berlyn,  M.  L.  (Trinity  Hall)  Made  a  promising  maiden 
effort. 

Best,  C.  P.  (Sidney)  Has  good  ideas,  but  seems  to  miss 
out  a  few  steps  in  the  reasoning  when  he  presents 
them  to  the  House.  His  phrases  are  at  times 
unique.  With  more  vigour  in  his  delivery  and  a 
less  dogmatic  manner,  he  would  be  one  of  the  beft 
speakers. 

Bold,  T.  A.  (Corpus)  Only  spoke  once.  He  had  things 
worth  saying,  and  knew  how  to  say  them. 

Burbury,  a.  V.  (King's)  Speaks  rather  like  an  automatic 
tape  machine.  All  that  comes  out  is  new,  and 
most  is  worth  having. 

CoNDLiFFE,  J.  B.  (Gonville  and  Caius)  His  delivery  is 
somewhat  halting.  He  combines  a  light  touch  with 
effective  material,  and  is  always  interesting. 

Davison,  E.  L.  (St.  John's)  Is  a  great  acquisition  to  the 
House.  A  poet  who  speaks  good  prose  without 
becoming  prosy. 

DoBB,  M.  H.  (Pembrqke)  Began  a  career  in  speaking 
which  we  hope  may  prove  a  notable  one. 

DoNNELL,  R.  H.,  Sub-Lieut.  (Trinity)  Showed  keenncbs 
and  perseverance.  A  little  more  levity  and  brevity 
would  make  him  more  inspiring. 

Dunning,  N.  G.  (Peterhouse)  Speaks  too  staccato  and  in 
too  high  a  voice,  and  is  inclined  to  be  melodramatic. 
Always  a  ready,  clear,  and  forcible  speaker. 

Edwards,  E.  E.  (Downing)     Spoke  once  during  this  term. 

Needs  a  little  more  confidence. 
Ezard,  B.  J,  B.  (Trinity  Hall)     Has  all  tlic  promise  and 

possibilities  of  a  good  speaker. 


48  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Field,  D.  T.  C.  (Emmanuel)  When  he  speaks  is  Hke  a 
refreshing  sea-breeze  wafted  across  a  desert.  At 
times  there  is  a  diminutive  gale  which  carries  all 
before  it. 

FuNNELL,  C.  G.  (Sidney)  Needs  a  little  more  life  and 
vigour  in  his  speaking. 

Griffiths,  P.  J.  (Peterhouse)  Has  a  peripatetic  manner 
which  is  apt  to  detract  from  the  value  of  speeches 
which  otherwise — original  and  clear — would  be  of 
value  to  any  debate.  Needs  to  cultivate  the 
persuasive  manner. 

Grose  Hodge,  G.  G.  (Pembroke)  A  well-known  name. 
Is  a  great  and  staunch  supporter  of  his  party.  He 
possesses  good  measure  of  fluency  and  polish,  but 
needs  to  study  the  art  of  sustaining  interest  through- 
out a  long  speech. 

Heckstall-Smith,  H.  M.  (Sidney)  Has  a  pleasant 
manner  of  speaking. 

Henderson,  A.  (Trinity  Hall)  On  all  subjects  political 
and  on  Labour  topics  is  a  keen  debater.  Is  broad- 
minded  and  invariably  well-informed.  A  little 
more  practice  will  make  his  speeches  of  great  value. 

Herman,  J.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Interesting,  original  and 
fluent.  Has  spoken  frequently  and  has  always 
made  a  useful  contribution. 

HoROBiN,  I.  M.  (Sidney)  Most  serious  when  humorous  ; 
most  abstruse  when  straightforward.  One  sus- 
pected an  attempt  at  a  mild  leg-pull  of  the  House. 

Johnston,  W.  D.  (Christ's)  Spoke  once  only  ;  effected  the 
felicitous  alliance  of  brevity  and  interest. 

Lawley,  F.  E.  (FitzwilHam  Hall)  Quite  one  of  the  most 
fluent  speakers,  but  is  always  on  the  war-path  and 
deadly  serious.  Needs  to  temper  his  eloquence 
with  moderation. 

Le  Maitre,  a.  S.  (St.  John's)  Is  too  modest  to  give  us 
the  full  benefit  of  his  humour  and  inventiveness, 
but,  when  his  ire  is  roused,  he  is  as  fluent  as  the 
best.  Like  a  rich  meat  pie — once  you  break  the 
crust  there's  plenty  in  it. 

Macpherson,  I.  (Trinity)  Showed  all  the  latent  attributes 
of  a  good  speaker.  We  hope  these  talents  will 
fructify  and  flourish. 


CRITICISMS  49 

Morgan,  S.  C.  (Trinity)  Is  our  tour  de  force.  Men  don't 
go  out  while  he  is  speaking,  and  they  flock  in  to  hear 
him.  On  opponents  of  LiberaHsm  he  pounces 
with  the  swoop  of  a  hawk.  Possesses  the  priceless 
gift  of  originality  and  has  a  delightfully  rich  vein  of 
humour.     Let  the  Government  beware  of  him  ! 

Morris,  D.  (Christ's)  Broke  the  ice  of  silence  with  grace 
and  success. 

Morris,  E.  H.  F.  (Christ's)  Has  a  charming  manner. 
Suave  and  persuasive.  At  times  his  ideas  are  so 
plentifully  ebullient  that  one  wonders  whether  he 
is  not  inebriated  with  the  exuberance  of  his  own 
fertility  of  mind. 

Mountbatten,  Lord  Louis,  Sub-Lieut.  R.N.  (Christ's) 
Possesses  the  "charm  of  colloquialism."  Has  a 
ready  wit  and  a  genius  for  turning  opponents' 
arguments.  Is  always  an  attractive  speaker,  es- 
pecially in  the  unprepared  parts  of  his  speech. 
When  he  has  nothing  to  say  he  still  says  it  very 
nicely. 

North,  J.  F.  A.  (Downing)  Is  inclined  to  be  sensational  and 
even  bitter,  but  possesses  the  gifts  of  fluency  and 
originality . 

NoRTHAM,  R.  (Queens')  We  wish  he  had  had  more 
opportunity  to  speak,  for  the  impression  he  created 
was  first-rate. 

Paish,  F.  W.  (Trinity)  Shows  a  consistently  Liberal  line 
of  thought  and  expresses  himself  pleasantly  and 
clearly. 

Pedler,  T.  S.  (Queens')  Made  two  short  but  useful 
speeches. 

Perry,  R.  W.  (Peterhouse)  A  good  speaker.  Brisk, 
fresh,  and  amusing. 

Phillips,  G.  G.  (Trinity)  Showed  all  the  promise  of  a  good 
speaker. 

Prest,  C.  p.  (St.  John's)  Spoke  but  once,  and  was  then 
reasonable  and  useful. 

Pritchard,  E.  a.  B.  (King's)  Spoke  sound  sense,  but 
spoke  it  abstrusely. 

Pryke,  W.  W.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Has  latent  debating 
ability  which  needs  development  and  practice. 

Purcell,  V.  W.  W.  S.  (Trinity)  Has  not  been  heard  as 
often  as  would  have  been  wished. 

Rahim,  M.  I.  (Pembroke)     Made  a  good  start. 


50  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Raikes,  H.  V.  A.  (Trinity)  With  practice  should  become  an 
effective  speaker. 

Ram,  V.  S.  (Emmanuel)  Fluent,  forcible,  ferocious.  But 
speed  is  not  the  chief  factor  that  makes  for  good 
speaking. 

Richardson,  J.  H.  (Emmanuel)  Should  become  a  useful 
debater.  He  thinks  well  and  dehvers  well.  Needs 
more  sparkle  and  more  confidence. 

Room,  L.  E.  (Corpus)  Showed  genuine  humour,  which 
covers  a  multitude  of  sins. 

RuNciMAN,  W.  L.  (Trinity)  Has  given  proof  of  hereditary 
debating  abilit}^,  but  has  too  often  thought  that 
while  speech  is  silver,  silence  is  golden.  A  true 
Liberal.     Eh  bien  ! 

Russell,  A.  W.  (Gonville  and  Caius)  One  of  the  many 
"first  offenders"  whom  it  is  so  difficult  to  criticise. 

Sampson,  E.  W.  (Corpus)  Spoke  but  once  ;  was  then 
useful  and  interesting. 

Sells,  A.  L.  (Sidney)  With  more  confidence  and  vigour 
he  would  be  an  effective  speaker. 

Sharp,  G.  G.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Has  a  direct  and  straight- 
forward manner,  and  makes  his  points  in  a  telling 
way.  Quite  one  of  the  best  speakers — logical, 
moderate,  and  invariably  interesting. 

Smellie,  K.  (St.  John's)     Made  a  promising  first  speech. 

Steers,  D.  H.  (St.  John's)  Soldier  and  Imperialist.  His 
speeches  were  but  too  few.  Has  a  definite  view  and 
presents  it  well. 

Strong,  P.  N.  W.  (Selwyn)  Relies  rather  much  on  notes, 
resembling  a  torrent  fed  from  copious  tributaries. 
At  times  rather  too  forced.  Has  a  pleasant  manner 
and  well  thought-out  material. 

Swan,  T.  (Emmanuel)  A  good  debater.  Is  inclined  to  be 
stiff. 

Theobald,  G.  W.  (Emmanuel)  One  of  the  discoveries  of 
the  term.  Has  the  power  of  compelling  attention, 
and  a  mellowness  and  moderation  of  voice  which 
adds  to  the  force  of  his  speeches.  As  a  debater 
has  shown  himself  an  ingenious  inventor  of  vote- 
winning  arguments.     Has  a  keen  sense  of  humour. 

Thompson,  A.  C.  (Trinity  Hall)  Possesses  debating  ability'' 
and  originality,  but  is  not  sufficiently  forcible. 


CRITICISMS  51 

Thornton,  D.  L.  (Magdalene)     Has  a  style  suitable  for  a 

directors'  meeting,  and  subject  matter  as  abstruse 

as  if  for  an  address  to  the  British  Association. 
Tracey,  C.  B.  (St.  John's)     A  forcible  speaker  ;   perhaps 

a  trifle  too  much  so. 
Walker,  E.  R.  C.  (Emmanuel)     Has  a  sly  form  of  humour 

and   is  rather   conscious   of  it.     His  speeches   are 

always  good. 
Warren,  D.  D.  (Corpus)     Needs  to  make  his  points  more 

slowly  and  forcibly. 
Watson,    R.    E.    (St.    Catharine's)     Keen    and    capable. 

Should  do  well  at  the  Union.     "A  stern,  unbending 

Tory."     Needs  to  vary  his  voice. 
Wilson,  H.  L.  (Emmanuel)     Made  one  speech  which  we 

hoped  would  be  followed  by  others. 
Wilson,  R.  K.  (Trinity  Hall)     As  far  as  he  went  was  good, 

and  we  hope  he  will  go  farther. 
Yeatman,  H.  M.  (Pembroke)     Is  demobilised,  but  not  yet 

Demosthenes.     But  he  may  be  if  he  cultivates  the 

talent  which  lies  low. 


Lent  Term,    1920. 

President :  Mr.  G.  H.  Shakespeare  (Emmanuel). 
Vice-President :  Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 
Secretary  :  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse), 
Treasurer  :  Mr.  J,  E.  McTaggart,  Litt.D.  (Trinity). 
Librarian  :  Mr.  B.  G.  Brown,  M.A.  (Trinity). 
Steward  :  Mr.  E.  Bullough,  M.A.  (Gonville  and  Caius). 
Committee  :  Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke). 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's). 

Sub-Lieut.  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten  (Christ's). 
•  Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel). 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall). 


First  Debate,  Tuesday,  January  20th,   1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  deplores  the  action  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  of  America  in  regard  to  the  Peace 
Treaty." 

Our  demobilised  Demosthenes  was  by  this  time  satisfied 
with  the  conclusions  of  his  domestic  post-philippics,  and, 
believing  that  the  home  front  had  sufficiently  engaged  the 
clarity  of  his  thought  and  the  wings  of  his  eloquence,  was 
anxious  to  express  his  opinion  on  the  American  impasse. 

Two  ex-Presidents,  Mr.  Harold  Wright  and  Mr.  H.  D. 
Henderson,  bore  the  brunt  of  the  debate,  and  gave  a  refresh- 
ing display  of  back-chat. 

"My  friend"  (Mr.  Henderson),  explained  Mr.  Wright, 
"has  sufficient  acumen  and  common  sense  to  agree  with 
me  on  every  subject  except  two.  In  the  first  place  I 
deplore  the  attitude  of  America  to  the  Peace  Treaty ;  and, 
secondly,  I  believe  that  Lord  Northcliffe  is  a  greater  danger 
than  our  Prime  Minister."  It  must  be  confessed  that  the 
House  (not  unUke  'that  other  House')  is  never  so  elevated 
as  when  speakers  descend  to  personalities. 

The  debate  w^as  somewhat  marred  by  the  absence  of 
a  clear  issue  and  decisive  opinions.  In  fact,  as  a  member 
confided  to  the  President  afterwards,  "without  frequent 
reference  to  the  paper,  it  was  difficult  to  determine  whether 
any  speaker  was  expressing  approbation  or  reprobation." 

52 


UNION    DEBATE,  JANUARY    1920  53 

Mr.  T.  Swan  (Emmanuel)  gave  a  short  sketch  of 
American  politics.  Mr.  Wilson  had  failed  to  carry  the 
Peace  Treat}'  because  he  had  disregarded  the  coalition 
principle.  The  result  was  that  polic}^  was  directed  bv  a 
dead  Washington  rather  than  a  live  Wilson.  The  Peace 
Treaty  had  not  been  ratified  because  the  "League  of 
Nations"  had  been  included  in  it.  Had  the  Treaty  been 
signed  there  would  have  arisen  a  strong  alliance  between 
Great  Britain,  France  and  America.  Now  the  League  had 
become  a  mutual  benefit  society,  with  the  three  great 
countries — America,  Germany,  Russia  excluded.  So  con- 
stituted, it  could  never  be  a  success.  The  result  was  much 
bad  feeling  between  America  and  ourselves.  America 
emerged  from  the  war  the  only  creditor  nation,  and  had 
failed  to  show  that  moral  responsibility  which  every 
nation  owed  to  the  world.  Mr.  Swan  gave  a  good  definition 
of  "stray  nation"  in  his  "Irish,  Germans  and  others." 

Mr.  Ian  Macpherson  (Trinity)  made  his  maiden 
appearance  as  a  speaker  on  the  paper.  His  attitude  to 
the  motion  was  most  original,  if  not  convincing.  ,Competi- 
tion  and  criticism  being  the  essential  elements  of  progress, 
the  League,  on  which  apparently  he  turned  an  eye  of  mild 
favour,  could  only  be  strengthened  b}"  American  opposition. 
Surely,  Labour  troubles  had  saved  the  present  Coalition. 
His  argument  amounted  to  this — that  the  only  way  to 
establish  the  League  on  sure  foundations  was  to  start  by 
undermining  them.  How  great  is  the  influence  of  Mr. 
Chesterton  on  modern  thought  ! 

Mr.  Harold  Wright  (ex-President,  Pembroke),  after 
an  amusing  interchange  of  pleasantries  with  the  fourth 
speaker,  ventured  to  disagree  with  the  proposer's  advocacy 
of  "a  grand  alliance,"  which  he  termed  "a  counsel  of 
despair."  The  last  speaker's  ingenious  theory  as  to  the 
value  of  opposition  he  referred  to  as  an  attractive  by- 
product. A  League  of  Nations  with  an  Opposition  was  a 
contradiction  in  terms.  America  had  thrown  out  the 
Peace  Treaty  because  she  could  not  swallow  article  10  of 
the  Covenant.  This  article  had  been  called  "the  heart 
of  the  League,"*  embodying,  as  it  did,  the  principle  of  a 

„.„  •"CASES   OF  aggression. 

Article  lo. 

"  The  members  of  the  League  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve  as  against 

external  aggression  the  territorial  integrity  and  existing  poUtical  independence 

of  all  members  of  the  League.     In  case  of  any  such  aggression,  or  in  case  of 

any  threat  (jr  danger  of  such  aggression,  the  Council  shall  advise  upon  the 

means  by  which  this  obligation  shall  be  fulfilled." 


5.4  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

defensive  alliance.  Whereas  the  Senate  might  have 
modified  the  selfish  aims  of  the  European  nations,  it  did 
but  wish  to  graft  on  to  the  Treaty  its  own  equally  selfish 
terms.  How  much  might  have  been  saved  the  world 
during  the  last  fifty  years  if  every  aggressor  nation  had 
been  met  by  an  economic  boycott  and  the  defensive  alliance 
which  article  lo  would  establish  ! 

Mr.  H.  D.  Henderson  (ex-President,  Emmanuel) 
expressed  the  hope  that  America  would  join  the  League  of 
Nations  if  article  lo  were  modified,  Wh}^  should  America, 
by  article  lo,  guarantee  to  maintain  territorial  arrangements 
of  which  even  the  last  speaker  had  grave  misgivings  ? 
She  wanted  to  leave  herself  free  to  make  war  or  not 
according  to  the  merits  of  each  particular  case,  and  not  to 
bind  herself  by  a  possibly  out-worn  promise.  A  mere 
mechanical  guarantee  was  no  more  the  heart  of  a  living 
organism  like  the  League  than  a  criminal  code  or  police 
force  was  the  heart  of  a  country.  The  Council  of  the 
League  represented  the  vested  interests  of  the  great 
European  nations,  and  America  would  never  support  such 
vested  interests.  War  was  the  inevitable  result  of  modern 
diplomacy,  and  no  State  should  guarantee  to  wage  war 
against  another  State  which  would  probably  be  only 
technically  the  aggressor. 

Mr.  Butler  (ex-President,  Trinity),  in  a  speech  showing 
complete  mastery  of  his  subject,  explained  that  the  much 
disputed  article  lo  was  the  real  safeguard  of  the  smaller 
nations  against  sudden  and  brutal  aggression. 

There  also  spoke  : — For— Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Secretary 
Peterhouse),  Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's). 

Against — Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Em.manuel),  Mr.  L.  V. 
Snowman  (Downing),  Mr.  E.  W.  Sampson  (Corpus). 

Division  : — Ayes,  229  ;   Noes,  117.    Majority  For,  112. 

Second  Debate,  Tuesday,  January  27th,  1920. 

Morion  :  "  That  this  House  desires  to  express  its  approval 
of  the  Government's  proposals  for  the  solution  of  the  Irish 
question." 

The  Irish  question  might  be  called  the  furred  deposit 
of  our  political  kettle.  But,  given  an  Irishman  and 
some  hot  water,  the  kettle  is  never  too  furred  to  boil.  A 
solution  that  might  conciliate  in   19 14  becomes  almost  a 


UNION    DEBATE,    JANUARY    1920  55 

source  of  irritation  in  1920.  The  hope  of  Home  Rule 
deferred  makes  the  heart  of  an  Irishman  sick,  and  only 
to  be  comforted  by  making  Ireland  a  Republic — a  cure 
that  this  country  is  hardly  likely  to  accept.  Even  granting^ 
they  argue,  that  we  shall  look  after  our  own  affairs  less 
efficientl}'  than  England  can,  it  is  better  "to  reign  in  Hell 
than  serve  in  Heaven."     This  is  the  essence  of  the  dilemma. 

T.R.H.  Prince  Albert  and  Prince  Henry  attended 
the  debate,  which  proved  of  lively  interest. 

]\Ir.  R.  E.  Watsox  (St.  Catharine's),  much  as  he  dis- 
liked the  present  Government,  saw  some  sanity  in  their 
Irish  proposals.  Three  wa^^s  of  meeting  the  difficult}^  had 
been  suggested.  The  first  was  an  Irish  Republic.  This 
was  impossible  for  a  people  consisting  of  two  races  distinct 
in  religion  as  in  ideas.  The  second  solution,  the  19 14 
scheme,  disregarded  the  legitimate  claims  of  Ulster,  while 
the  third — the  complete  separation  of  Ulster — disregarded 
the  claims  of  Ireland.  Therefore,  we  were  driven  to  adopt 
the  Government  proposals  of  two  separate  legislatures 
with  a  joint  council,  working  on  the  federal  S3^stem.. 
Surely  this  was  an  honest  attempt  to  reconcile  the  irre- 
concilable. What  folly  to  talk  of  Ireland  for  the  Irish,  when 
the  first  President  of  the  Republic  was  a  Portuguese  Jew  I 

Ml.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  (Selwyn)  started  in  a  light  vein. 
Addressing  the  President  (Mr.  Shakespeare),  he  said, 
"As  your  distinguished  ancestor,  sir.  Lord  Bacon,  said." 
He  was  not  allowed  to  continue.  "I  wish  to  remind  the 
honourable  gentleman,"  interrupted  the  President,  "that 
this  chair  is  quite  impersonal  and  has  no  ancestry." 
Mr.  Strong  neatly  turned  the  laugh  against  the  President 
by  apologising,  and  adding,  "As  Mr.  William  Shakespeare 
once  said."  Continuing,  he  indulged  in  a  perfect  medic}'- 
of  metaphor.  Mr.  Lloyd  George  had  taken  a  free  kick  for 
the  Government,  but  had  only  hit  the  cross-bar  and  failed 
to  score.  Ireland  had  been  sent  an  empty  envelope 
labelled  "Dominion  Home  Rule."  The  proposer  had  been 
hoodwinked  because  he  had  not  looked  inside.  Self- 
determination  was  the  principle  for  which  tiie  last  war  had 
been  fought.  How  did  our  treatment  of  Ireland  square  with 
this  principle  or  with  the  League  of  Nations  ?  The  only 
solution  was  self-determination  for  both  north  and  south. 

Mr.  W.  H.  Ramsbottom  (ex-President,  Emmanuel) 
started  by  jjointing  out  that  the  last  speaker's  ancestor, 
Strongbow,  was   responsible    for    all    the    trouble    in    the 


56  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

north  of  Ireland.  Mr.  Strong  interrupted,  "I  am  not 
an  Irishman."  "Neither  was  Strongbow,"  replied  Mr. 
Ramsbottom,  Continuing,  he  showed  how  the  present 
proposal  of  a  Federal  Government  lay  half-way  between 
the  Union  which  had  failed,  and  complete  separation 
which  was  impossible.  Dominion  Home  Rule  was  not 
applicable  to  a  people  so  near  our  shores,  and  who 
were  so  inextricably  bound  up  with  ourselves.  Certain 
powers  had  to  be  reserved.  Ireland  would  still  be  taxed 
imperially  to  pay  for  certain  services  in  accordance 
with  the  federal  principle,  and  the  Empire  would  be 
proud  to  follow  Ireland's  example.  Ulster  and  the  rest 
of  Ireland  were  to  be  united  in  a  loose  Union.  Australia 
showed  how  effective  such  loose  Unions  could  be.  In 
South  Africa,  on  the  contrary,  too  strong  a  Union  was 
the  cause  of  continual  friction.  The  Irish  could  offer  no 
sensible  solution  for  themselves.  The  Government  were 
therefore  trying  the  expedient  of  a  little  political  science. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Secretary,  Peterhouse)  is  the  son  of 
a  former  NationaHst  M.P.,  and  on  such  questions  speaks 
with  intimate  knowledge  and  feeling.  The  Irish,  he 
explained,  were  not  peculiar  savages,  as  the  supporters  of 
the  motion  imagined.  De  Valera  was  neither  a  Portuguese 
nor  a  Jew.  "Ulsters"  occurred  all  over  Europe,  but  the 
Peace  Conference  dealt  with  them  by  subjecting  the 
minority  to  the  majority.  Even  in  Ulster  48  per  cent,  of 
the  people  were  non-Unionists.  No  scheme  had  a  chance 
of  success  unless  the  Irish  were  given  the  control  of  customs 
and  excise.  Control  of  taxes  was  the  essence  of  liberty. 
Consent,  not  force,  was  the  only  justification  of  Empire. 
Repression  always  led  to  further  outrage.  Ireland  should 
be  trusted  and  treated  as  a  nation  with  her  own  ideals  and 
tradition.     She  wanted  Liberty,  not  Charity. 

There  also  spoke  r — For — Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (ex-Presi- 
dent, Trinity  Hall),  Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke), 
Mr.  G.  M.  Graham  (King's),  Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's), 
Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury  (King's),  Mr.  H.  V.  A.  Raikes  (Trinity), 
Mr.  J.  H.  Richardson  (Emmanuel). 

Against — Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall),  Mr.  G.  G. 
Phillips  (Trinity),  Mr.  F.  W.  Paish  (Trinity),  Mr.  J.  A. 
McCoy  (Christ's).  Mr.  V.  S.  Ram  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  W.  D. 
Johnston  (Christ's),  Mr.  M.  U.  S.  Jung  (Christ's). 

Division  : — Ayes,  197  ;    Noes,  131.     Majority  For,  66. 


UNION    DEBATE,    FEBRUARY    1920  57 

Third  Debate,  Tuesday,  February  3rd,  1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  views  with  suspicion  any 
proposals  for  the  Nationalisation  of  Mines. '^ 

The  question  of  Nationalisation  is  the  most  prominent 
question  of  the  day,  and  tends  to  be  the  great  Hne  of 
cleavage  between  parties.  The  Coalition  stands  or  falls 
by  its  attitude,  believing  that  private  control  and  free 
competition  supply  the  bases  of  national  prosperity. 
Labour  lisps  that  magic  word  a-  though  it  were  the  "Open 
Sesame"  to  every  road  of  progress,  and,  straining  out  the 
gnat  of  capitalism,  swallows  the  bureaucratic  camel. 
Asquithianism  is  undecided,  either  damning  with  faint 
praise  or  praising  wdth  faint  damns. 

The  debate  was  a  good  one,  and  may  be  described  in  the 
verse  of  our  Granta  correspondent  : 

"  Full  deep  the  tide  of  talking 
It  did  both  flow  and  ebb 
With  frequent  reference  to  Sidney 
And  Cole  and  others  of  their  kidney 
Caught  in  the  Fabian  Webb." 

H.R.H.  Prince  Henry  was  present,  accompanied  by 
Commander  Grieg. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  showed  that  it  was 
fooHsh  to  argue  that  the  Sankey  Commission  pledged 
the  Government  to  any  poHcy.  Nationalisation  meant  a 
gigantic  central  Bureaucracy,  and  probably  a  large  subsidy 
raised  by  taxing  industry.  The  Government  control  of 
telegraphs  had  shown  a  loss  of  30  milhons  sterling.  Self- 
interest,  blink  the  fact  as  we  might,  was  the  mainspring  of 
human  conduct.  There  was  no  self-interest  in  a  bureau- 
crat. It  was  said  that  coal  would  be  cheaper,  but  Mr. 
Webb,  in  answer  1226,  had  doubted  whether  the  price  of 
coal  could  be  lowered.  Nor  would  the  danger  of  strikes 
be  obviated  according  to  the  expressed  opinions  of  Labour 
leaders.  The  Duckham  Scheme  was  a  fair  interpretation 
of  the  Sankey  Report. 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall)  is  to  the  Union  what 
his  father  is  to  the  House  of  Commons — the  official  voice  of 
Labour.  He  was  pleased  to  see  the  re-union  of  Liberal  and 
Tory  at  last  in  the  proposer  and  third  speaker.  In  con- 
sidering the  working  of  the  mines  we  were  faced  with  the 
alternatives  of  private  ownership  or  State  ownership.     The 


58  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

former  stood  condemned  beyond  reprieve  by  the  Sankey 
Commission,  seven  of  whom  voted  for  NationaHsation. 
High  dividends  for  shareholders  and  security  of  hfe  for  the 
miners  were  incompatible.  The  present  system  of  barriers 
led  to  loss  of  production.  The  public  were  tired  of  the 
spasmodic  changes  in  the  price  of  coal  and  of  the  profiteer- 
ing of  owners.  Joint  industrial  control  was  a  different 
thing  from  Bureaucrac3^ 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke)  pointed  out  that 
the  present  system  was  a  hybrid  of  private  ownership  and 
State  control.  Surely  the  pre-war  system  had  been 
justified  by  its  fruits.  Fifty  years  had  seen  production 
increased  five-fold.  Deaths  had  decreased  to  i|per  i,ooo. 
As  to  mine  owners  profiteering,  the  excess  profit  duty  had 
prevented  that.  The  opposer  had  hoped,  trusted,  believed^ 
expected — he  might  have  been  a  fraudulent  company 
promoter.  The  country  would  be  bankrupt  by  buying 
out  the  owners,  setting  up  a  huge  State  department,  and 
providing  a  large  subsid}'. 

Mr.  C.  L.  Wiseman,  Peterhouse  (Ex-Secretary), 
doubted  whether  the  coal  industry  had  built  up  the 
Empire.  He  beheved  rather  that  the  Empire  had 
built  up  the  coal  industry.  Nationahsation  depended 
on  three  fundamental  facts.  Minerals  were  national 
wealth,  a  national  necessity,  and  were  hmited  in  quantity. 
No  one  should  profit  out  of  a  necessity.  Conference 
after  conference  w^as  held  between  the  Prime  Minister 
and  the  miners,  but  the  door  of  Downing  Street  stood 
between  the  interested  few  and  the  unenlightened  public. 
Joint  control  need  not  abolish  private  enterprise.  State 
control  did  not  necessarily  mean  Bureaucracy.  Experi- 
ments w^ere  needed  to  meet  changed  conditions.  For  the 
permanent  official  would  be  substituted  the  mining  expert. 

A  clear  and  convincing  exposition. 

The  debate,  being  thrown  open,  produced  much  dialectic 
skill.  Among  the  most  promising  of  the  younger  speakers 
we  should  perhaps  mention  Mr.  Grifliiths,  Mr.  Richardsoa 
and  Mr.  Dobb. 

Tnere  also  spoke  : — For — Mr.  S.  C.  Morgan  (Trinit}')^ 
Mr.  A.  E.  Brierlev  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  L.  E.  Room  (Corpus), 
Sub-Lieut.  R.  H"  Donnell  (Trinity),  Mr.  L.  V.  Snowman. 
(Downing). 

Against — Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Vice-President,  Emmanuel)^. 


UNION    DEBATE,    FEBRUARY    1920  59 

Mr.  P.  J.  Griffiths  (Peterhouse),  Mr.  F.  E.  Lawley  (Fitz- 
william  Hall),  Mr.  J.  H.  Richardson  (Emmanuel),  Mr. 
M.  H.  Dobb  (Pembroke). 

Division  : — Ayes,  148  ;    Noes,  105.     Majority  For,  43. 


Fourth  Debate,  Tuesday,  February   loth,  1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  considers  the  pre-war  policy 
of  the  Liberal  Government  both  deceptive  and  dangerous. ^^ 

We  must  confess  that  the  subject  of  this  debate  caused 
much  criticism.  "Why  not  let  sleeping  dogs  lie  ?  "  said 
some,  "The  debate  will  serve  that  very  purpose,"  replied 
our  last  and  only  Tory.  Our  personal  reluctance  was 
over-borne  by  a  chance  of  securing  the  services  of 
Viscount  Haldane  himself.  A  hundred  years  hence,  when 
all  should  be  forgotten,  if  not  forgiven,  examiners  in 
the  Histor}^  Tripos  will  delight  in  questions  such  as  the 
above  motion,  adding,  of  course,  "discuss  Haldane 's 
habihty."  In  which  case  candidates  would  do  well  to 
borrow  this  book  from  the  vStanley  Brown  of  the  21st 
century  and  read  how  Haldane  discussed  his  own  liability. 
Few  men  in  public  life  have  suffered  such  vile  calumny  or 
such  Fleet  Street  effervescence.  But  question  the  pre- 
paredness of  this  countr}^  as  we  may,  no  sane  man  can 
deny  that,  in  as  far  as  we  were  prepared,  it  was  in  no  small 
measure  due  to  Lord  Haldane  himself.  Haldane's  policy 
we  may  criticise,  Haldane's  genius,  sincerity,  and  patriotism 
we  cannot  but  admire. 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's)  explained  that  he  was 
acting  as  the  advanced  guard  to  the  main  attack,  but  hoped 
to  reveal  the  enemy's  weak  points  and  to  engage  his 
Territorial  Reserve.  The  workers  had  been  banquetted 
with  rare  and  refreshing  fruit,  the  vicarious  hospitality  of 
Mr.  Lloyd  George.  We  heard  much  of  Liberal  Principle, 
and  he  supposed  its  charm  lay  in  its  elusiveness.  A  good 
example  of  it  was  shown  by  the  Trades  Disputes  Act,  1906. 
The  Attorney-General  had  been  forced  to  eat  his  own 
words  and  Trade  Unions  had  been  put  beyond  the  reach 
of  the  law.  Though  in  pre-war  days  there  had  not  been  the 
same  need  for  economy,  the  Navy  had  not  been  kept  at 
a  two-keel-to-one  standard,  while  the  Army  had  been 
weakened.  The  National  Insurance  scheme  was  an 
extravagant    and    trumpery    offer.     The    working    classes 


6o  DEMOSTHENES  DEMOBILISED 

needed  not  ninepence  for  fourpence,  but  a  greater  share 
of  responsibility.  The  only  consistent  thread  of  Liberal 
principle  was  the  desire  to  set  class  against  class. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (ex- President,  Trinity  Hall)  took  up 
the  proposer's  metaphor  of  an  attack  by  an  advanced 
guard.  "  The  hon.  proposer,"  he  said,  "promised  me  a 
barrage  and  all  he  gave  me  was  a  barrage  of  red  herrings. 
Behold,  I  was  looking  for  a  tank,  and  my  friend  rides  into 
battle  on  a  motor  scooter."  Before  1901  the  Trade  Union, 
like  any  other  unincorporated  body,  was  not  liable  for  its 
torts.  The  Taft  Vale  decision,  however,  had  fixed  them 
wdth  habihty.  All  that  the  Trades  Disputes  Act  had  done 
w^as  to  restore  their  former  immunity.  The  corner-stone 
of  the  debate  was  the  Liberal  attitude  to  the  German 
menace.  Their  policy  had  two  aspects,  the  preparatory 
and  the  preventive.  The  pre-war  atmosphere  of  suspicion 
was  the  outcome  of  the  Tory  attitude.  The  expedi- 
tionary force  w^as  the  child  of  the  Liberal  Government. 
The  war  had  only  confirmed  his  conviction  that  the 
Liberals  were  to  blame  not  for  working  after  peace,  but 
for  not  having  striven  with  greater  efforts. 

Sir  Ernest  Wild,  K.C,  M.P.  for  Upton  Division 
of  West  Ham,  expressed  himself  embarrassed  at  being 
confronted  with  Lord  Haldane,  and  felt  sympathy  with 
Ko-Ko  when  he  said  to  Pooh-bah,  "Come  over  here 
where  the  Chancellor  can't  hear  us."  However,  he 
had  devoted  some  time  to  reading  his  Lordship's 
book.  He  noticed  that  the  publisher,  in  his  introduction, 
had  WTitten  that  this  book  was  a  complete  vindication 
of  Lord  Haldane 's  policy.  He  regarded  this,  however,  as 
"a  plea  in  mitigation  of  sentence."  It  was  the  pre-war 
Liberal  policy  that  called  forth  his  criticism  and  he  felt 
sure  that  the  noble  Lord  would  understand  that,  if  he  said 
hard  things,  no  attack  was  being  made  on  his  personal 
sincerity.  By  pre-war  Liberalism  he  meant  that  policy 
advocated  by  the  noisy  faddists  of  the  party,  who  trusted 
to  catch-words  for  their  votes  and  class  prejudice  and 
passion  for  their  appeal.  The  Liberals  deserved  no  credit 
for  their  elementary  foresight  in  maintaining  a  strong  Navy. 
Some  Tories  were  Chauvinists  perhaps,  but  the  whole  party 
was  at  least  patriotic.  The  greatest  condemnation  of  the 
Liberals  was  that  they  had  never  taken  the  people  into 
their  confidence.  This  country  was  misled,  and  France 
was    dispirited.     Even    the    leading    Liberal    journal    on 


UNION   DEBATE,   FEBRUARY    1920  61 

August  3rd,  1 9 14,  had  declared  that  the  trouble  on  the 
continent  was  not  worth  the  bones  of  a  single  British 
soldier.  Lastly,  Germany  had  been  led  to  rely  on  our 
neutrality.  Had  she  been  informed  that  we  should  help 
France  if  she  were  attacked,  she  would  have  thought  twice 
before  plunging  Europe  into  war. 

Sir  Ernest  Wild  made  a  ver\  clear  and  convincing  case, 
illuminated  by  a  sparkling  humour  and  frequent  references 
to  Lord  Haldane's  book,  out  of  which  he  made  much 
capital. 

Viscount  Haldaxe,  on  rising  to  speak,  was  given  a 
tremendous  ovation,  and  it  was  several  minutes  before  he 
could  make  a  start.  He  has  a  delightful  and  easy  manner 
of  speaking,  and  obtains  his  effect  never  by  brilliant 
phraseology,  seldom  by  oratorical  appeal,  but  by  his  well- 
balanced  and  logical  presentation  of  facts.  One  feels 
that  he  is  thinking  his  way  along  from  premise  to  premise 
until  one  almost  irresistibly  agrees  with  his  conclusions. 
And,  behind  all,  there  is  the  convincing  charm  of  a  great 
personality. 

He  started  by  explaining  that  he  was  under  a  great 
disadvantage  because  he  could  not  say  "Mine  enemy  hath 
\\Titten  a  book."  Liberal  legislation  had  been  much 
criticised,  but  there  was  not  the  same  haste  to  repeal  it. 
Past  pohtics  were  easily  solved  in  the  Hght  of  subsequent 
revelation.  What  were  the  difficulties  of  the  old  Liberal 
Government?  In  1904  it  found  the  country  particularly 
unprepared.  Their  policy  was  to  strike  a  balance  between 
two  conflicting  principles.  In  the  first  place,  they 
wanted  to  clear  away  the  atmosphere  of  suspicion  and 
prevent  war  by  delaying  it  until  it  became  impossible. 
A  new  party  was  growing  up  in  Germany— a  peace  party, 
anxious  to  drive  out  the  Militarists  and  to  set  up  a 
constitutional  government.  In  the  second  place,  war 
always  being  possible,  they  had  to  decide  on  the 
best  method  of  maintaining  national  security.  Lord 
Roberts'  scheme  of  National  Military  Service  was  dis- 
credited by  the  Imperial  Defence  Committee,  for  invasion, 
even  if  possible,  would  have  been  ineffectual.  Conscription 
was  discountenanced  even  by  Conservatives.  The  only 
feasible  scheme  was  to  maintain  a  strong  Navy,  a  swiftly 
mobilised  and  rapidly  striking  expeditionary  force  and  a 
Territorial  Army  behind  it  as  a  reserve.  This  expeditionary 
force  would  secure  the  Channel  ports  and  prevent  Germany 


62  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

using  them  as  a  base.  The  situation  was  too  grave  for 
pubhc  discussion,  and  the  declaration  of  open  alHances 
would  have  precipitated  war.  As  to  Germany  mistaking 
our  policy,  she  had  been  clearly  warned  that  she  must  not 
rely  on  our  neutrality,  were  France  attacked.  To  say  that 
the  organisation  of  our  army  had  weakened  it,  was  like 
saying  that  a  boxer,  with  every  ounce  of  superfluous  flesh 
turned  to  muscle,  was  unfit  to  fight.  In  conclusion,  he  said, 
"This  is  our  record,  and  we  feel  that  we  can  hold  up  our 
heads  and  tell  it  out  with  pride.  Our  only  regret  is  that 
we  did  not  do  more  to  encourage  better  feeling  with 
Germany." 

There  also  spoke  : — For — Mr.  G.  G.  Coulton  (St.  John's), 
Sub-Lieut.  R.  H.  Donnell  (Trinity). 

Against — Mr.  S.  C.  Morgan  (Trinity),  Mr.  J.  B.  Palmer 
(St.  John's). 

Division  : — Ayes,  316  ;  Noes,  441.  Majority  Against, 
125. 


Fifth  Debate,  Tuesday,  February  17th,  1920. 

Motion  :  ^^That  this  House  considers  that  the  adoption 
of  any  system  of  Compulsory  Military  Training  will  not 
further  the  interests  of  Great  Britain.^' 

The  President  was  responsible  for  a  poor  debate  by 
choosing  an  uninspiring  subject,  with  the  weight  of  opinion 
predominantly  on  one  side.  To  any  Government  which 
proposed  a  scheme  of  conscription  would  be  given  the 
short  but  irresistible  answer  of  "You  try  !  "  The  life  of  a 
Government,  like  the  life  of  the  law,  is  "not  logic,  but 
experience."  However,  the  debate  served  its  intended 
purpose  of  offering  a  tempting  bait  to  the  maiden  speaker, 
and  we  will  leave  it  at  that. 

Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel)  showed  how  the 
adoption  of  any  compulsory  scheme  of  training  would  be 
playing  into  the  hands  of  that  noisy  little  sociahstic  group. 
The  safety  of  the  Dominions  depended  on  free  communica- 
tions, which  were  only  maintainable  by  an  efficient  Navy. 
Our  only  militar}'  need  was  a  strong  expeditionary  force. 
Compulsion  would  be  a  costly  experiment,  and  only 
excusable  to  meet  a  menace  of  invasion  which  was  no 
menace  at  all.  Any  attempt  to  be  dominant  by  land  and 
sea  had  ruined  every  empire  that  set  out  to  achieve  it. 


UNION    DEBATE,    FEBRUARY    1920  63 

The  lessons  of  history,  from  the  days  of  Carthage  to  the  time 
of  the  Dutch  ascendancy,  showed  the  folly  of  substituting 
land  power  for  sea  power.  Our  strength  lay  in  the  proper 
use  of  our  traditional  arm. 

Mr.  C.  P.  Best  (Sidney  Sussex)  believed  that  Democracy 
and  Conscription  were  not  incompatible.  Socialists  on  the 
Continent  were  in  favour  of  military  training.  The  duty 
of  defence  was  a  matter  above  part}',  and  should  be  equally 
distributed.  War  was  still  a  decided  possibility,  and 
failure  to  realise  this  led  to  improvised  preparations  when 
the  danger  had  arisen.  The  essence  of  statesmanship  was 
to  look  ahead  and  be  prepared. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel)  suspected  that 
Conscription  was  the  ghost  behind  the  motion.  Having 
founded  the  League  of  Nations  on  the  grave  of  Prussianism, 
it  seemed  a  pity  to  dig  it  up  and  re-establish  it  in  this 
country.  Education  and  industry  would  suffer.  In  the 
event  of  another  European  war,  we  should  be  the  better 
prepared  if  we  relied  on  a  strong  Navy  and  a  skeleton  Army 
capable  of  expansion.  A  soldier  was  not  built  in  a  day, 
and  a  short  training  was  absurdly  inadequate.  Apart 
from  the  desirability  of  the  scheme,  this  country  would  not 
tolerate  it.  This  was  a  time  of  crisis,  and  unrest,  and  only 
the  spark  of  compulsion  was  needed  to  fire  the  powder. 

Mr.  G.  G.  CouLTON  (St.  John's)  is  as  ardent  over 
National  Service  as  Cobden  was  over  Free  Trade.  He 
has  advocated  his  pet  scheme  in  season  and  out  of 
season.  In  19 14  he  carried  a  motion  in  favour  of  national 
service  in  the  same  house  by  one  vote.  His  witnesses 
range  from  Hannibal  to  Hadley  ;  in  fact,  history  is  his 
handmaiden,  but  the  prophet,  not  without  honour  even 
in  this  country,  fails  to  prosel3'tise. 

He  was  surprised  that  we  should  be  prevented  from 
making  adequate  provision  for  our  safety  for  fear  of 
offending  cither  Germany  or  Bob  Smillie.  He  doubted  the 
proposer's  interpretation  of  history.  The  overthrow  of 
Carthage  by  Rome  was  the  triumph  of  the  professional  over 
the  amateur.  Sea-power  and  land-power  were  not  incom- 
patible. At  least  four-fifths  of  the  retired  admirals 
believed  in  National  Military  Service.  During  the  Hundred 
Years  War,  when  we  kjst  command  of  the  sea  for  twenty 
years,  it  was  our  national  citizen  army  that  kept  France 
at  bay.  Conscription  was  not  anti-socialistic.  It  was  the 
essence  of  Democracy  to  put  a  bank-manager  under  the 


64  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

command  of  his  bank  clerk.  Nor  would  industry  suffer. 
Experts  had  attributed  Germany's  industrial  success  to  her 
military  training.  He  had  written  to  Swiss  business  men 
on  the  subject,  and  the  great  majority  had  expressed 
themselves  in  favour  of  it.  Had  we  adopted  Lord  Roberts' 
scheme,  it  was  not  improbable  that  continental  countries 
would  have  followed  our  lead.  Mihtary  training  w^ould 
then  have  been  standardised,  and  ever}^  nation  would  have 
been  strong  in  defence  and  weak  in  offence.  Thus  war 
would  have  been  impossible. 

There  also  spoke  : — For — Mr.  E.  R.  C.  Walker  (Em- 
manuel), Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (FitzwiUiam  Hall),  Mr.  E.  W. 
Sampson  (Corpus),  Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall),  Mr. 
J.  A.  Gemmell  (Emmanuel),  Mr.  A.  E.  Brierley  (Peterhouse), 
Mr.  E.  H.  Denyer  (Sehvyn). 

Against — Mr.  C.  B.  Bowman  (Sidney),  Mr.  R.  E. 
Watson  (St.  Catharine's),  Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's), 
Mr.  L.  V.  Snowman  (Downing),  Mr.  C.  L.  Bennet  (Jesus), 
Major  D.  H.  Steers  (St.  John's). 

Neutral  :  Mr.  J.  Herman  (FitzwilHam  Hall). 

Division  : — Ayes,  114  ;   Noes,  47.    Majority  For,  6j. 

Of  the  above  we  pick  out  two  maiden  speakers. 

Mr.  Gemmell  made  a  most  amusing  speech.  His 
humour  is  enhanced  by  appearing  to  be  unconscious. 

Mr.  Bennet  gave  a  most  interesting  and  lucid  account 
of  the  history  of  military  service  in  New  Zealand. 

Sixth  Debate,  Tuesday,  February  24th,  1920. 

Motion  :  "That  this  House  considers  that  the  time  is  noiv 
ripe  Jot  a  Labour  Government. 

The  sixth  debate  was  perhaps  the  most  successful  of 
the  term.  It  was  the  Inter-Varsity  debate,  a  custom  which 
had  lapsed  since  1914.  The  Oxford  Union  Society  sent 
three  representatives.  A  distinguished  visitor  is  usually 
invited  on  such  an  occasion,  and  we  were  fortunate  in 
securing  Mr.  Churchill.  The  House  was  one  of  the  fullest 
in  the  history  of  the  Union,  over  a  thousand  being  present. 
Two  hours  before  the  debate  was  to  start,  members  began 
to  take  up  their  positions.  By  eight  o'clock  the  hall  was 
the  scene  of  unusual  excitement.  Members  relieved  the 
tedium  of  waiting  by  hitting  each  other  over  the  head  with 
the  lathes  torn  from  the  hired  chairs.     Every  available 


UNION   DEBATE.    FEBRUARY    1920  65 

standing  space  was  occupied,  the  crowd  surging  up  to  the 
Presidential  chair  in  a  manner  reminiscent  of  a  football 
scrum.  Several  late-comers  actually  climbed  in  through 
the  window,  and  were  borne  from  shoulder  to  shoulder 
until  the}^  found  room  for  their  feet. 

Hundreds  of  members  stood  patiently  during  the  first 
five  speeches  to  hear  ]Mr.  Churchill,  and  their  patience  was 
amply  rewarded. 

T.R.H.  Prince  Albert  and  Prince  Henry,  accompanied 
by  Commander  Grieg,    were  present   at  the  debate, 

Mr.  E.  J.  Lassen  (Lincoln,  Oxford)  proposed  the  motion. 
Labour  was  now  fit  in  policy  and  personnel  to  succeed  the 
Coalition,  which  had  brought  us  to  the  verge  of  revolution. 
The  Constantinople  policy  was  a  violation  of  promises  ; 
India  was  the  scene  of  fearful  massacres  ;  Ireland  was  ruled 
by  tyranny.  The  attitude  to  Russia  showed  two  con- 
flicting policies.  Like  the  National  Party,  the  Government 
consisted  of  only  two  members.  The  Secretary  for  War 
thought  Labour  unfit  to  govern.  He  was  certainly  a  judge 
of  fitness  !  Labour  was  frequentl}^  called  revolutionary, 
but  it  was  difficult  to  be  revolutionary  in  five  years.  Even 
the  Morning  Post  had  admitted  that  Labour  had  a  policy, 
and  that  was  conclusive  testimony  (Our  friend  Mr. 
Peaker,  the  Morning  Post  representative,  was  seen  to  be 
writing  hard.)  Mr.  Lassen  made  a  very  forcible  attack 
on  the  Coalition  in  thr  short  compass  of  twenty  minutes. 
He  reminded  us  of  a  Roman  candle  which  has  to  make  so 
many  explosions  while  the  powder  lasts. 

Sub-Lieut.  Lord  Louis  Mountbatten  (Christ's)  con- 
gratulated the  proposer  on  having  dealt  with  everything 
but  the  motion.  He  detected  a  blatant  contradiction. 
The  proposer  had  said  that  Russia  was  starving,  and,  later, 
that  she  had  been  prevented  from  exporting  hei  natural 
resources.  1 1  was  useless  to  deny  that  Labour  Government 
meant  government  by  a  class  as  much  as  if  all  "those 
rotten  dukes"  held  the  reins.  We  should  be  ruled  by 
sectional  interests,  by  the  champions  of  any  workers  with 
a  "bleat  on."  The  miners  had  expressed  no  real  opinion 
on  nationalisation.  They  had  been  asked  to  vote  on  four 
questions,  a  six-hour  day,  a  30  %  increase  in  wages, 
nationalisation,  and  raising  the  German  blockade.  Natur- 
ally they  voted  "yes."  Labour  was  still  suffering  from 
growing  pains.     It  might  be  ready  in  the  future  tc  assume 


66  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

power,  but,  for  the  present,  ignorance  of  foreign  politics 
made  the  experiment  dangerous. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Vice-President,  Emmanuel)  thought 
the  present  a  time  of  re-shuffling.  Men  of  all  parties  were 
being  attracted  to  Labour,  which  alone  had  a  policy  and  a 
vision.  It  was  a  great  wonder  that  Labour  was  not  more 
restive,  considering  how  the  Sankey  Report  had  been  "the 
sport  of  politicians."  The  Labour  Party  appealed  not 
only  to  a  class,  but  to  nine-tenths  of  the  country,  and 
counted  as  adherents  both  the  horny-handed  and  the 
intellectual.  Why  was  not  the  time  ripe  now  ?  Eight 
Labour  members  served  in  the  Coahtion,  and  showed 
themselves  worthy  of  confidence.  And  yet  it  was  urged 
that  they  lacked  experience.  Put  Labour  in  power,  and 
the  death-knell  of  Bolshevism  is  rung. 

Mr.  C.  Gallop  (Balliol,  President  of  the  Oxford  Union), 
after  the  usual  complimentary  preamble,  expressed  doubt 
whether  any  two  Labour  leaders  were  agreed  on  one  policy. 
All  of  them  made  a  flourish  of  "ends"  without  "the  means" 
to  accomplish.  They  were  like  the  wonderful  "eight" 
portrayed  by  a  lady  novelist,  who  wrote,  "All  rowed  fast, 
but  none  so  fast  as  Bryan."  He  emerged  from  the  war 
an  unrepentant  Liberal.  How  would  Labour  solve  inter- 
national questions  ?  They  might  not  desire  the  break  up 
of  empire,  but  they  wou.cl  probably  achieve  it. 

Mr.  Gallop  served  up  a  delightful  dish  from  an  old 
joint  ! 

Mr.  C.  B.  Ramage  (Pembroke,  Oxford)  was  afraid  that 
the  Coalition,  like  the  poor,  would  be  always  with  us.  Its 
members  only  swam  together  by  sinking  their  differences. 
What  was  the  result  ?  Conscription  was  still  in  force  ; 
"D.O.R.A."  walked  abroad  throughout  the  land;  a  hundred 
millions  had  been  squandered  on  the  internal  affairs  of 
Russia  ;  no  houses  as  yet  appeared  above  ground,  and 
unrest  was  prevalent  everywhere.  The  massmg  of  forces 
against  Labour,  Lord  Robert  Cecil  had  termed  idiotic. 
The  time  was  overripe.  Until  we  had  nationalisation  there 
would  be  no  increase  of  output.  That  was  now  a  psycho- 
logical question.  Most  economic  experts  were  in  favour 
of  a  capital  levy  to  pay  off  the  huge  war  debt.  It  was 
folly  to  say  that  Labour  would  destroy  the  Empire. 

Mr.  Ramage  was  reasonable  and  convincing,  and  has 
the  first  essential  of  a  speaker — personality. 


UNION   DEBATE,    FEBRUARY    1920  6-] 

Mr.  Winston  Churchill,  ]\I.P.  (Secretary  of  State  for 
War),  on  rising  to  speak,  had  an  enthusiastic  reception.  It 
was  only  the  week  before  that  he  had  made  his  great  attack 
on  Labour  at  Dundee,  and  he  was  still  full  of  fight.  In  fact, 
he  is  always  the  embodiment  of  Browning's  lines,  "I  was 
ever  a  fighter,  so  one  fight  more,  the  best  and  the  last." 
Mr.  Churchill  has  the  distinguishing  quality  of  courage. 
As  a  debater  he  has  few  equals.  He  combines  a  picturesque 
imagination  and  striking  phraseology  with  a  compelling 
logic.  Above  all,  no  public  speaker  to-day,  with  the 
exception  of  Mr.  Asquith,  has  such  a  mastery  of  English. 

Mr.  Churchill  said  that  he  noticed  a  threat  running 
"diminuendo"  through  the  speeches  of  the  proposer  and 
seconder  of  the  motion.  Were  we  to  have  a  settlement  by 
force  or  argument?  "Let  us  have  sarcasm,  argument, 
invective,  and  all  the  weapons  of  the  human  mind,  but 
don't  make  a  squalid  threat  to  take  away  a  man's  coal  !  " 
Labour  would  not  show  its  abilit}^  to  govern  by  threats. 
He  doubted  whether  men  wdio  organised  a  lightning  strike 
could  manage  the  affairs  of  the  British  Empire.  The 
Coalition  stood  by  argument.  He  was  delighted  at  being 
attacked,  but  he  claimed  the  right  of  hitting  back.  "Now" 
w'as  the  important  word  in  the  motion.  He  never  said 
that  the  time  would  never  be  ripe.  Some  day  the  party 
might  get  new  leaders,  new  elements,  a  new  outlook,  or 
even  be  united.  At  present  Labour  did  not  represent 
one-fifth  of  the  workers.  He  had  more  sympatlty  with  the 
real  workers  than  the  newcomers  into  the  party.  It  was 
all  very  well  to  offer  yourself  for  the  commanding  positions 
and  call  yourself  Labour.  Let  the  Vice-President  talk 
to  his  constituency  about  "horny  hands."  In  spite  of  the 
conversion  of  Mr.  Shaw  and  Mr.  Ponsonby,  Lord  Haldane 
and  Admiral  Fisher,  Labour  remained  a  class  party. 
Under  our  present  system,  government  was  carried  on  by 
the  whole  nation,  a  great  commonwealth.  Absolute 
equality  of  opportunity  had  not  been  achieved,  but  there 
was  at  least  an  open  door  to  all  classes.  Our  Prime 
Minister  had  risen  from  a  cottage.  But  Labour  made  and 
kept  men  equal.  (Cries  of  "No.")  "It's  no  good  saying 
'No,'  "  said  Mr.  Churchill,  "it  is  so  ;  dead  equality  except 
for  the  political  bosses." 

Our  Capitalist  system,  with  all  its  abuses,  was  an 
infinitely  flexible  method  of  testing  relative  merit.  Do 
away  with   it,  and  leaders  are  chosen  by  political  wire- 


68  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

pulling.  The  substitution  of  a  vague  love  of  a  commune  or  a 
Soviet  for  personal  initiative  would  take  away  all  incentive. 
Capital  was'  the  accumulated  prudence  and  thrift  of 
mankind.  Without  it  there  could  be  no  command  and  no 
control,  but  only  anarch}-.  Therefore,  purge  our  system, 
but  don't  overthrow  it. 

Labour  advocated  self-determination  as  a  universal 
remedy,  whereas  such  a  principle  should  be  modified 
according  to  the  merits  of  time  and  place. 

In  pursuing  the  glittering  image  of  Internationalism, 
we  should  be  careful  not  to  skip  a  stage,  but  should  re- 
member how  much  the  national  ideal  has  meant.  There 
was  a  great  difference  between  the  Trade  Union  that  had 
fought  for  minimum  standards  and  one  that  was  the 
revolutionary  centre  of  strike  threats.  It  was  a  mistake 
to  believe  that  Lenin  and  Trotsky  overthrew  the  Tzar  ; 
they  overthrew  the  Russian  Republic.  Once  a  nation  goes 
off  the  rails  it  goes  from  bloody  massacre  to  red  terror,  from 
red  terror  to  militar}^  dictatorship.  "Look  at  Russia,"  he 
said,  "the  tyranny  of  force  and  terror  changed  to  a  tyranny 
of  ideas  and  formula.  Industrial  conscription — 12  hours 
a  day,  the  abolition  of  the  right  of  free  speech  and  meeting, 
destruction  of  the  Parliament  lately  established,  destruction 
of  most  of  the  members  of  that  Parliament  !  What  a 
melancholy  conclusion  !  " 

In  conclusion,  he  asked  how  long  a  moderate  Labour 
Government  would  last  in  this  country.  Russia  gave  the 
answer.  "The  immediate  accession  to  power  of  Labour 
would  be  contrary  to  the  intention  of  those  who  won  the 
war.  It  would  weaken  our  country  all  over  the  world, 
damage  its  credit,  and  injure  its  powers  of  reparation." 

This  was  one  of  the  most  brilliant  speeches  we  have 
ever  heard  at  the  Union.  When  Mr.  Churchill  was  paint- 
ing his  vivid  word-picture  of  the  Russian  tragedy,  the 
atmosphere  was  almost  electrical,  and  when  he  added 
"what  a  melancholy  conclusion,"  in  a  tone  half  pity  and 
half  contempt,  the  House  broke  into  a  roar  of  laughter. 

Division  : — Ayes,  265  ;  Noes,  651.  Majority  Against^ 
386. 

Seventh  Debate,  Tuesday,  March  2nd,   1920. 
Motion  :  ^'That  this  House  deplores  the  tendency  of  the 
modern  novel." 

After  the  grey    sombre,  and  often  sordid  atmosphere 


UNION    DEBATE,   MARCH    1920  69 

that  surrounded  political  controversy,  it  was  decided  to 
give  Demosthenes  a  chance  of  meandering  with  a  mazy 
motion  through  the  green  pastures  of  literary  fancy.  The 
debate  was  ver}^  well  attended,  and  proved  refreshing  and 
restful.  The  presence  of  Sir  Arthur  Quiller  Couch,  or  "Q," 
as  he  is  more  popularly  known,  put  a  great  strain  on  the 
timbers  supporting  the  gallery. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  (St.  John's)  explained  that  by  modern 
novelists  he  meant  all  those  living  at  the  present  day,  with 
the  exception  of  Thomas  Hardy — the  last  of  the  great 
Victorians.  To-day  we  had  about  2,000  novelists  !  The 
two  essentials  of  a  good  novel  were  an  inspiring  idea  and 
perfect  technique.  He  condemned  modern  writers  because 
they  could  find  no  mean  between  an  absolute  hero  and  an 
utter  villain.  The  novel  displayed  little  technique,  and 
showed  signs  of  hurried  composition.  It  was  inspired 
by  commercialism  instead  of  fame.  Love  was  sensual  and 
realism  revolting.  That  kind  of  stuff  sold  better.  The 
function  of  the  novelist  was  to  present  beautiful  ideas  in  a 
beautiful  form, 

Mr.  E,  L.  Davison  (St.  John's)  is  already  known  as  one 
of  the  most  promising  of  Cambridge  poets,  and  he  spoke 
with  conviction.  Modern  novels  should  be  judged  by 
"the  peaks,"  and  not  by  the  shilling  shockers.  Modern 
writers  like  Kipling, Conrad, and  Mackenzie  suffered  nothing 
by  comparison  with  the  old  school.  Jane  Austen  was  a 
realist,  and  modern  realism  would  be  termed  romantic  by 
our  grandchildren  just  as  we  referred  to  the  romantic 
realism  of  Dickens.  Psycho-analysis  was  as  old  as  Shake- 
speare, and  there  was  no  better  example  of  it  than  lago 
or  Othello.  Art  dealt  with  every  side  of  life  and  with 
every  tendency,  and  must  therefore  be  realistic.  Joseph 
Conrad  excelled  equally  at  characterisation,  realism  or 
romance.  Poets  and  novelists  were  groping  after  an 
indefinable  something. 

Professor  Sir  Arthur  Quiller-Couch  said  that  we 
lived  in  an  age  when  every  idea  produced  an  explosion. 
In  self-defence  he  often  felt  like  cutting  his  own — lecture. 
Tendency  was  either  moral  or  .  .  .  artistic.  He  was  not 
concerned  with  morals,  of  other  peopk'.  There  was  no 
tendency  of  the  novel  to-day,  there  were  many.  He  was 
educated  in  a  school  in  which  for  the  author  to  emerge  from 
the  background  and  chat  about  his  characters  was  a  piece 
of  artistic  ill-breeding.  The  characters  should  be  jnit  on  the 


JO  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

stage  and  left  to  speak  for  themselves.  Preaching  was  a 
modern  vice  for  which  we  had  to  thank  Shaw  and  Wells, 
although  under  their  treatment  it  was  tolerable.  The 
destiny  of  the  world  rested  more  safely  on  Antony  and 
Cleopatra  than  on  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Sidney  Webb.  He 
deplored  the  tendency  of  novels  to  be  a  transcript  of  life, 
following  the  hero  from  birth  until  the  time  ...  he  was 
separated  from  his  wife.  He  could  not  condemn  sufficiently 
an  author  who  took  occasion  to  befoul  his  school  and 
university  on  the  way.  Commercialism  required  a  uniform 
length  of  80,000  words.  One  distinguished  noveHst,  when 
asked  to  conclude  his  serial  story,  replied,  "I  have  a  wife 
and  family,  and  I  never  intend  to  conclude."  Material 
success  was  the  modernist's  god.  The  old  writers  took  a 
high  view  of  their  calhng.  Stevenson,  Meredith,  Henry 
James,  whose  friendship  he  treasured,  did  not  care  who 
produced  a  good  novel,  so  long  as  a  good  novel  was  pro- 
duced. He  concluded  by  bidding  God-speed  to  the  new 
school  of  writers. 

A  speech  of  rare  sensibility  and  charm  dehvered  in  his 
own  inimitable  way. 

Mr.  A.  L.  Attwater  (Pembroke)  confessed  that  the  last 
appearance  he  had  made  in  the  House  was  to  speak  against 
the  German  menace  in  19 14.  Though  this  motion  was 
prophetic,  he  was  nothing  daunted.  If  modern  workman- 
ship showed  a  lack  of  construction  and  faulty  technique, 
surely  the  reason  was  found  in  the  fact  that  writers  had 
devoted  five  years  to  war.  There  were  three  main  criticisms 
of  the  modern  novel.  It  was  propagandist,  too  realistic, 
and  delighted  in  psychological  analysis.  The  first  two 
criticisms  were  true,  but  as  preaching  played  a  large  part 
in  life,  it  was  little  wonder  to  find  it  appearing  in  literature. 
The  social  Mount  of  Olives  was  still  a  living  volcano. 
ReaHsm  was  a  healthy  attempt  to  strip  life  of  all  but  the 
reality,  and  was  a  reaction  against  the  purple  tinsel  of 
sentimentality.  Psychological  analysis  was  in  harmony 
with  the  age.  The  discover}  of  human  personality  was 
the  aim  of  the  noveHst,  and  that  study  demanded  minute 
introspection.  Art  was  experimental,  and  always  tried 
to  express  herself  in  some  new  form.  Art  was  like  the 
alchemist  searching  for  gold. 

There  also  spoke  : — For — Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Em- 
manuel), Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke),  Mr.  R.  H.  L. 
Slater  (Emmanuel),   Mr.   D.   Morris   (Christ's),   Mr.   C.   C. 


UNION   DEBATE,   MARCH    1920  71 

Marlow  (St.  John's),  Mr.  G.  A.  Newgass  (Trinity),  Mr.  C.  L. 
Bennet  (Jesus). 

Against — Mr.  B.  K.  Martin  (Magdalene),  Mr.  A.  V. 
Burburv  (King's),  Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall), 
Mr.  F.  W.  Paish  (Trinity),  Mr.  R.  E.  Watson  (St.  Catha- 
rine's), Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's),  Mr.  J.  Herman 
(Fitzwilliam  Hall). 

Division  : — Ayes,  123  ;  Noes,  178.  Majority  Against, 
55- 

Eighth  Debate,  Tuesday,  March  9th,   1920. 
Visitors'   Debate. 
Motion  :     "  That   this  House  desires  to  express  its  renewed 
confidence  in  the  Coalition   Government^ 

The  last  debate  of  the  term  is  always  preceded  by  the 
declaration  of  the  result  of  the  poll.     This  was  as  follows  :— 
President  :  Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (Emmanuel). 
Vice-President :  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse). 
Secretary  :  Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's). 
Committee  :  Mr.   G.  G.  Grose   Hodge  (Pembroke). 
Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel). 
Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall). 
Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall). 
Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury  (King's). 
Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's). 
The  retiring   President   called  upon  the  newly-elected 
officers  to  take  their  places,  and  then  descended  to  the  floor 
ol  the  House,  feeling  like  a  warrior  returning  home  after 
the   battle.     The   new   Secretary,    Mr.    E.    H.    F.    Morris, 
proposed  a  vote  of  thanks  to  the  retiring  officers,  and  turned 
his  fierce  glare  upon  the  chair  and  blackened  every  blot. 
Mr.  Grose  Hodge,  the  senior  member  of  the  new  committee, 
seconded    the    vote    of   thanks.     The    retiring    President, 
Mr.  Shakespeare,  replied.     He  thanked  the  House  for  the 
privilege  of  being  allowed  to  guide  the   destinies  of  the 
Society  through  such  a  memorable  term,  and  referred  to 
the  outside  interest  taken  in  the  debates.     Within  5  days 
of  the    Irish   debate   he   had   received   two   letters.     One 
stated  : — 

"The  debate  at  your  Union  (laughtei)  on  Ireland 
proves  that  your  young  men  have  humour  and  ability. 
It  also  proves  that  they  know  as  much  about  ])olitics 
as  a  dog  does  about  the  moon." 


72  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

The  other  said  : — 

"The  debate  on  Ireland,  over  which  you  presided, 
was  very  inteiesting  as  .coming  from  the  embryo  states- 
men of  Great   Britain." 
,  The  Irish  are  nothing  if  not  humorous  ! 
Mr.  G.  H.Shakespeare,  Emmanuel  (retiring  President) 
then  proposed  the  motion.   He  touched  hghtly  on  the  Peace 
Treaty.     Considering  that  this  was  a  settlement  between 
about  ten  nations  imbued  by  hereditary  hatreds,  he  was 
surprised,  not  that  the  principles  of  LiberaHsm  had  been 
sometimes  violated,  but  that  they  had  been  violated  so 
seldom.     This    was    due    to    our    Prime    Minister.     The 
greatest  event  in  home  politics  was  the  return  to  Parliament 
of  Mr.  Asquith.     Every  party  was  delighted.     But  this  was 
no  vindication  of  Liberalism,  but  a  personal  triumph.     He 
denied  that  Liberals  had  taken  out  a  copyright  for  principle. 
The  Coalition  relied  on  the  tempering  of  justice  with  common 
sense.     To-day  there  were  only  two  parties,  Labour  and 
non-Labour.     On    main    issues,   like   nationalisation    and 
a  capital  levy,   Asquithians  had   a  similar  poUcy    to    the 
Coalition.     There  was  no  room  for  a  party  Brontosaurus 
lurking  about  the  lobby,  extinct  but  refusing  to  die  !     The 
other  alternative  was  Labour,  whose  poHcy  had  a  touch  of 
the  dawn  about  it.     "When  we  are  young,"  he  said,  "we 
all  read  Swinburne  and  are  half  in  love  with  Labour,  but 
'when  we  are  old,  are  old,  and  full  of  sleep,'  we  wrap  our 
souls  in  a  dressing  gown,  read  Matthew  Arnold,  drink  port, 
and  become  Conservative."     But  until  Labour  put  off  the 
robe  of  the  tyrant  and  adopted  constitutional  methods,  it 
would    not    make    converts.     In    conclusion,    he   made    a 
summary  of  what  Coalition  had  done.     Government  was 
not  run  on  a  press-the-button  system.     Houses  were  not 
like   mushrooms    of   one    night's   growth.     The    Coahtion 
welcomed  the  criticism  and  relied  on  the  goodwill  of  all 
reasonable  men  and  women. 

Col.  J.  C.  Wedgewood,  D.S.O.,  M.P.  for  Newcastle- 
under-Lyme,  gave  some  time  to  the  Government's 
foreign  policy.  For  their  Russian  policy  the  Coalition 
was  at  the  mercy  of  Churchill  and  Clemenceau.  This 
gave  Russia  a  chance  of  producing  a  second  Napoleon 
and  bathing  Europe  in  blood  for  fifty  years.  After 
wasting  120  millions  on  the  internal  affairs  of  Russia, 
they  were  forced  to  follow  the  previous  advice  of  the 
Labour   Party    and    come   to    terms.     The  result   of  j^the 


VmO^    DEBATE,   MARCH    1920  73 

Peace  Treaty  in  Central  Europe  was  seen  in  the  dying 
struggles  of  civilisation.  The  towns  were  being  depleted, 
because  people  in  the  country  found  that  they  could  do 
without  manufactures.  Disease  was  rife  everywhere,  and 
the  mortality  was  terrible.  At  home  we  found  high  prices, 
due  to  the  Government's  policy  of  inflating  the  currenc}^ 
and  causing  a  glut  of  paper  mone3^  Labour  stood  for 
sound  finance,  economy  in  the  Navy  and  Arm}',  and  the 
abolition  of  superfluous  Government  departments.  The 
Coalition  was  content  to  carry  on  from  day  to  day,  guided 
by  expediency  and  lacking  in  conviction.  In  conclusion, 
by  a  brilliant  adaptation  from  Tolstoy,  he  compared  the 
workers  to  cattle  shut  in  from  the  rich  pastures  outside. 
He  had  learnt  at  school  that  it  was  "better  to  be  dead  than 
a  slave,  and  only  cowards  submitted  to  injustice  whether  to 
themselves  or  other  people." 

Colonel  Wedgewood  succeeded  in  creating  quite  a  tense 
atmosphere  by  his  sincerity  and  eloquence.  His  Tolstoy 
simile  was  a  fine  piece  of  artistic  imagery. 

Mr.  J.  FiTZALAN  Hope,  M.P.  for  Sheffield,  Central 
(Financial  Secretary  to  the  Ministry  of  Munitions), 
deputised  for  Mr.  C.  A.  McCurdy,  M  .P.  He  admitted  that  the 
Government,  as  the  residuary  legatee  of  Armageddon,  was 
unpopular  in  some  quarters.  Why  not  ?  Sureh^  that 
testified  to  its  moral  courage.  After  criticising  the 
action  of  Mr.  Kej-nes,  he  dwelt  on  the  Russian  pohcy. 
Russia  was  ruled  by  the  men  who,  in  191 7,  ruined 
their  country  and  betrayed  the  Allies.  If  there  was  any 
talk  of  honour,  we  were  bound  to  support  after  the  war 
those  with  Denikin  and  Kolchak,  who  alone  had  been  true 
to  the  Allies.  It  was  surely-  dishonourable  to  throw  them 
over  in  the  hour  of  our  victory.  The  state  of  Europe  was 
not  due  to  any  Peace  Treaty.  If  some  terms  of  the  latter 
were  excessively  severe  they  would  be  modified  by  the 
Reparation  Commission.  As  to  Home  affairs,  we  should 
be  able  to  make  both  ends  meet.  Labour  fancied  that, 
when  war  ended,  the  liabilities  of  war  ended  too.  The 
inflation  of  currency  was  a  war  necessity.  Anyhow, 
Labour,  pledged  to  Nationalisation,  could  not  talk  of 
economy.  The  only  alternative  to  the  present  Coalition 
was  a  new  Coalition.  The  absence  of  one  in  America, 
not  the  presence  of  one  here,  had  caused  all  the  trouble  in 
Europe.  He  saw  no  lack  of  principle  in  trying  to  steer 
the  ship  of  State  through  the  troubled  waters.     He  was 


74  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

proud  of  their  aims  and  achievements.  From  being  a 
bitter  opponent  of  Mr.  Lloyd  George  he  had  become  his 
sincere  admirer.  "Ephemeral  scribblers  might  condemn, 
but  history  would  write  their  praise." 

Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan  (Trinity)  congratulated  the 
aye-speakers  on  apologising  for  the  Coalition.  This 
had  been  useful,  but  had  now  completed  its  mission 
and  should  be  decently  buried.  The  war  problems, 
to  solve  which  it  had  been  elected,  were  over,  and 
we  were  faced  with  political  issues.  Who  was  not 
ashamed  of  the  miserable  191 8  election  pledges?  The 
body  of  the  Coalition  was  a  lumping  thing,  only 
kept  together  by  a  living  head.  The  Prime  Minister's 
supporters  were  either  wolves  in  sheep's  clothing  or  "any- 
raft-in-a-storm"  politicians.  The  Government  had  no 
authority  to  constitute  itself  an  anti-labour  party.  That 
dimply  put  a  grouse  in  the  hands  of  Labour,  who  "loved 
grouse,  feathers  and  all."  Mr.  Lloyd  George  had  a  star, 
but  it  was  set.  Coalition  had  no  policy,  and  was  "patched 
hke  a  darned  old  sock." 

Division: — Ayes,  178;  Noes,  196.  Motion  therefore 
lost  by  18  votes. 

Criticisms. 

Abraham,  L.  A.  (Secretary,  Peterhouse)  Probably  the 
most  effective  debater  at  the  Union.  He  is  fully 
informed  about  any  subject,  and  puts  his  arguments 
in  an  arresting  form.  On  Irish  questions  he  is  our 
"Devlin." 

Barnes,  J.  H.  (St.  John's),  is  an  ideaUst,  whether  support- 
ing the  League  of  Nations  or  beauty  in  art.  He  ha^ 
a  gift  of  elocution.  Perhaps  he  takes  the  debate 
too  seriously,  but  then  he  is  an  idealist. 

Bennet,  C.  L.  (Jesus),  has  made  several  really  interesting 
speeches  this  term.  He  has  a  fund  of  knowledge. 
With  greater  variation  in  tone  and  pitch  of  voice 
would  be  still  more  effective. 

Best,  C.  P.  (Sidney  Sussex)  An  old  Union  hand  who  can 
argue  clearly  and  with  force.  He  has  the  courage 
of  his  conservatism. 

Bowman,  C.  B.  (Sidney  Sussex).  Only  broke  the  silence 
once.  A  nice  manner  of  speaking  and  a  power  of 
expression. 


CRITICISMS  75 

Brierley,  a.  E.  (Peterhouse)  Once  he  gets  away  from 
his  notes  can  speak  well  and  clearly. 

BuRBURY,  A.  V.  (King's)  Has  an  entirely  original  style 
of  speaking  (or  is  it  thinking  aloud  ?)  His  delivery 
is  apt  to  be  monotonous,  but  his  matter  is  always 
strong  and  his  criticism  worth  having. 

Davison,  E.  L.  (St.  John's)  Only  spoke  once  during  the 
term,  but  made  quite  a  reputation.  He  is  clear 
and  interesting,  and  pleasantly  critical.  He  is  so 
wrapt  up  in  what  he  says  that  he  forgets  that  he  is 
saying  anything  and  becomes  peripatetic.  On  one 
occasion  he  strayed  five  yards  from  the  desk. 

DoBB,  M.  H.  (Pembroke)  Shows  much  promise  as  a 
debater,  and  should  go  far.  More  levity  would 
strengthen  the  seriousness  of  his  argument.  But  he 
is  one  of  the  clearest  thinkers  and  speakers  in  the 
House. 

DoNNELL,  Sub-Lieut.  R.  H.  (Tiinity)  Has  rather  too 
much  levity,  and  he  can  be  most  flippant  ;  but  he 
IS  quite  amusing  and  is  not  afraid  even  of  an  ex- Lord 
Chancellor.     Should  try  a  little  more  argument. 

Field,  D.  T.  C.  (Emmanuel)  On  his  da}^  can  debate  as 
effectively  as  an3^one,  but  varies  somewhat.  Rather 
the  bull-dog  variety,  and  nicely  tenacious.  Scents 
a  flaw  in  an  opponent's  logic  w^ith  great  skill. 

Gemmell,  J.  A.  (Emmanuel)  Is  a  conscious  or  unconscious 
Scotch  humorist — it  is  difficult  to  decide  which. 
He  is  most  amusing,  and  can  argue  well. 

Griffiths,  P.  J.  (Peterhouse)  Soon  gets  up  speed  and 
talks  so  rapidly  that  one  is  apt  to  miss  one  point  in 
running  after  the  next.  A  very  clear  thinker 
though,  and  when  he  slows  down,  carries  much 
weight. 

Grose  Hodge,  G.  G.  (Pembroke)  Believes  that  the  only 
way  to  learn  to  speak  is  to  keep  at  it.  Debating 
is  in  his  blood,  his  father  and  brother  both  being  ex- 
presidents.  One  of  oui  easiest  speakers,  who  argues 
soundly  on  any  wicket.     He  has  livened  up  a  lot. 

Henderson,  A.  (Trinity  Hall)  Like  Atlas,  bears  a  world 
of  Labour  on  his  shoulders,  and  he  can  do  it  too  1 
Slightly  hesitating  in  delivery  and  lacking  somewhat 
in  forcible  emphasis.  Still,  he  debates  well,  and 
puts  up  a  really  good  case.  With  more  practice 
will  be  a  most  effective  speaker. 

G 


^6  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Herman,  J.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Rises  late,  full  of  zeal  and 
enthusiasm,  and  argues  well.  Though  apt  to  be 
prosaic  and  lengthy,  always  contributes  something. 

Johnston,  W.  D.  (Christ's)  If  he  spoke  more  would  earn 
quite  a  reputation,  but  apparently  he  doesn't  want 
to,  or  perhaps  he  cannot  afford  the  time.  Quite  one 
of  the  best  of  the  infrequent  speakers. 

Lawley,  F.  E.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Is  the  Cleon  of  the 
Union.  Strong,  forcible,  and  effective.  Too  effec- 
tive, almost  to  the  point  of  being  aggressive.  Would 
learn  much  if  he  learnt  to  be  moderate. 

Le  Maitre,  a.  S.  (St.  John's)  Does  not  speak  as  well  as 
he  writes,  but  then  that  would  be  difficult.  Most 
speakers  fear  our  Granta  correspondent  until  they 
know  him  better  and  realise  that  he  is  harmless. 
He  speaks  well  when  he  conquers  his  nervousness, 
which  he  finds  difficult  to  do,  though  some  degree 
of  nervousness  is  admittedly  essential  to  a  good 
speaker. 

McCoy,  Sub-Lieut.  J.  A.  Never  takes  much  part,  but 
with  practice  would  be  quite  good. 

Ian  Macpherson  (Trinity)  Only  spoke  once,  but  has  such 
a  nice  personality  that  if  he  took  the  Union  more 
seriously  he  would  soon  be  a  star.  A  delightful 
style  too. 

Morgan,  S.  C.  (Trinity)  Is  a  most  accomplished  speaker. 
His  faithfulness  to  Asquithianism  is  almost  dog-like. 
He  can  be  both  logical  and  playful — both  with 
deadly  effect.     His  gags  and  tags  are  a  perfect  treat. 

Morris,  E.  H.  F.  (Christ's)  Is  a  fine  elocutionist.  He  has 
a  sound  knowledge  of  politics  and  economics  and 
loves  debating  some  quaint  theory  of  his  own 
invention.  He  takes  his  opinions  so  seriously  that 
it  is  quite  dangerous  to  interrupt  him. 

MouNTBATTEN,  Sub-Licut.  Lord  Louis  (Christ's)  Is  an 
exponent  of  terse  naval  English.  A  gift  of  slang 
too.  He  can  be  most  effective  at  confuting  an 
opponent  out  of  his  own  mouth.  He  had  a  difficult 
task  in  attacking  Labour,  because  (rumour  has  it)  his 
sympathies  ran  strongly  that  way. 

Paish,  F.  W.  (Trinity)  Can  always  be  relied  on  to  argue 
a  case  in  a  concise  and  convincing  manner.  Has 
plenty  of  confidence  and  speaks  like  one  long 
practised  in  the  art. 


CRITICISMS  y-j 

Ram,  V.  S.  (Emmanuel)     Is  the  best  of  the  Indian  speakers. 

Richardson,  J.  H.  (Emmanuel)  Thinks  concisely  and 
deepH%  and  expresses  himself  as  well  as  anyone  in 
the  Union.  His  knowledge  of  economics  stands 
him  in  good  stead,  too. 

Room,  L.  E.  (Corpus)  Turns  on  the  switch  whenever  the 
debate  grows  dark,  and  cheers  everyone  up.  A 
most  original  speaker. 

Sampson,  E.  W.  (Downing)  Has  taught  himself  to  speak 
in  one  term,  by  pegging  away  at  it.  He  improves 
every  time  he  tries,  and  is  both  sincere  and  reason- 
able. 

Sharp,  G.  G.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Is  an  old  Union  expert. 
If  an}'  criticism  is  necessary,  a  little  more  humour 
would  give  more  variation.  Few  members  have 
such  a  complex  knowledge  of  their  subject  or  speak 
with  greater  persuasiveness. 

Snowman,  L.  V.  (Downing)  Is  always  pleasant  to  follow, 
and  tempers  his  speeches  with  levity  and  brevity. 

Strong,  P.  N.  W.  (Selwyn)  Makes  up  for  what  he  lacks 
in  argument  by  his  refreshing  manner  of  being 
seriously  ridiculous.  The  effect  would  be  greater 
if  he  prepared  less. 

Swan,  T.  (Emmanuel)  Only  spoke  once,  but  made  quite 
an  impression  with  his  whimsical  intriguing  style. 

Theobald,  G.  W.  (Emmanuel)  Is  both  eloquent  and 
impressive.  One  of  the  most  polished  speakers  in 
the  House.  Never  at  a  loss  for  a  happy  phrase  or  an 
argument. 

Walker,  E.  R.  C.  (Emmanuel)  A  canny  Scot  with  a  real 
sense  of  humour.  A  trifle  slow,  but  always  sure  to 
say  something  worth  saying. 

Watson,  R.  E.  (St.  Catharine's)  Is  a  most  ready  speaker, 
and  should  do  well.  At  present  he  doesn't  get  quite 
enough  light  and  shade,  and  suffers  from  being 
over  emphatic  perhaps.  Beyond  this  he  deserves 
nothing  but  praise. 
The  following  only  spoke  once,  and  so  briefly  tliat  it  is 

difficult    to    foretell    their    summer    by    one    swallow  : — 

E.  H.  Denyer  (Selwyn),  G.  M.  Grahame  (King's),  M.  U.  S. 

Jung  (Christ's),  C.  C.  Marlowe  (St.  John's),  B.  K.  Martin 

(Magdalene),  D.  Morris  (Christ. 's),  G.  A.  Newgass  (Trinity), 

G.  G.  Phillii)s  (Trinity),  H.  V.  A.  Raikes  (Trinity),  R.  H.  L. 

Slater  (Emmanuel),  Major  D.  H.  Steers  (St.  John's). 


Easter    Term,     1920. 

President  :  Mr.  D.  M,  Reid  (Emmanuel). 
Vice-President  :  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse). 
Secretary  :  Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's). 
Commiitee  :  Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  (Pembroke). 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel). 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  (Fitzwilliam  Hall). 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall). 

Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury  (King's). 

Mr  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  (St.  John's). 

The  Easter  Term  saw  the  continuing  rise  of  political 
parties  with  all  the  necessary  intrigues  in  debate,  in  press, 
in  societies  and  in  cabals.  The  Liberal  Club  had  been  the 
first  to  use  its  influence  in  the  Union,  followed  by  those  of 
the  Labour  and  the  Tory  persuasions  in  quick  succession. 
Each  soon  became  suspicious  of  its  neighbours,  but  the  full 
blast  of  rivalry  has  yet  to  come.  The  spirit  of  the  war 
had  not  yet  died  away,  and  there  still  remained  the 
tendency  to  unite,  when  talking  of  government.  But  the 
delight  of  agitating  the  political  wires  was  too  great  to 
be  foregone,  and  finally,  we  saw,  as  of  old,  under- 
graduate politics  a  complete  model  of  those  at  St.  Stephen's  :. 
pseudo-whips,  compliant  newspaper  editors,  plot  and 
counterplot — and  all  so  serioush^ 

It  was  the  policy  during  the  term  to  allow  opportunities 
of  speaking  to  the  greatest  number  of  members.  This  bore 
good  fruit.  Perhaps  some  members  feel  sometimes  that 
they  should  have  been  among  the  first  four  speakers. 
Little  do  they  know  the  difficulties  of  arrangement,  of  the 
hurried  journeys  to  and  fro,  of  the  frequent  telephone 
messages  and  telegrams  which  only  too  often  do  not 
result  in  producing  a  speaker.  It  would  gladden  any 
President's  heart  to  be  met  by  an  unprincipled  scoundrel 
who  would  say  :  "Yes,  I  will  speak  when,  where,  and  how 
you  like  .  .  .  my  name  is  So-and-So,  and  my  college 
is.  .  .  ."  The  President  would  naturally  desire  to  have 
heard  him  speak,  and  might  be  a  little  startled  at  first,  but 
his  heart  would  warm  soon  enough.  Above  all,  the 
honourable  and  obliging  member  should  write  his  name 

78 


UNION    DEBATE,   APRIL    1920  79 

down  on  a  large  piece  of  paper,  as  President's  memories 
are  liable  to  be  defective. 

One  last  word  must  be  added,  and  this  refers  to  a  small, 
but  at  the  same  time  distinctive  change  in  the  appearance 
of  the  Society  in  debate.  During  the  last  decade,  the 
custom  of  wearing  a  severe  black  waistcoat  with  a  white 
tie  and  tails  has  faded  away,  to  be  replaced  by  the  more 
extravagant  and  handsome  white  waistcoat.  "Tempora 
mutantur"  may  be  true  in  only  a  small  degree  in  the 
Union,  but  at  last  the  change  seems  to  have  approached. 

Too  much  cannot  be  said  in  praise  of  Dr.  J.  E. 
^IcTaggart,  the  retiring  Treasurer,  for  the  singular  ability 
he  has  shown  in  raising  the  Society's  finances  from  their 
former  precarious  to  their  present  handsome  position. 

Finally,  all  the  officers  of  the  Union  must  agree  that 
the  smooth  working  of  everything  in  the  Society  is  due  to 
the  devotion  and  hard  work  of  Mr.  Stanley  Brown,  the 
Chief  Clerk,  who  works  quietly  in  the  background,  but 
whose  influence  is  enormous. 


First    Debate,    Tuesday,    April    27th,    1920. 

Motion  :  ' '  That  this  House  would  welcome  the  resumption 
of  friendly  relations  with  Germany.^' 

This  was  perhaps  rather  an  alarming  subject  to  intro- 
duce so  soon  after  a  war,  but  it  provided  a  keen  and  serious 
debate.  It  showed  a  lack  of  bitterness  which  would  have 
been  surprising  in  any  other  country,  and  the  subject  was 
discussed  frankly  and  on  its  merits.  Many  of  the  speakers 
on  both  sides  had  themselves  had  painful  experiences  in 
Germany. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald,  in  introducing  the  motion, 
insisted  that  Englishmen  should  be  above  the  level  of 
personal  animosity.  The  great  majority  of  German  people 
went  into  the  war  honestly  and  from  motives  of  self- 
defence.  He  proposed  immediate  resumption  of  com- 
mercial relations,  a  fixed  indemnity,  and  the  immediate 
admission  of  Germany  into  the  League  of  Nations.  The 
alternatives  were  a  resumption  of  militarism  or  a  Bolshevik 
friendship  between  Russia  anri  Geimany.  He  gave  the 
examples  of  South  Africa  and  Ireland  as  extremes.  Above 
all,  he  desired  to  give  Germany  a  fair  chance. 


8o  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge,  in  opposing  the  motion, 
regretted  to  see  that  England  had  forgotten.  The  Germans 
were  unrepentant  and  determined  on  revenge.  Friendship 
with  both  France  and  Germany  was  impossible.  Should 
England  desert  France  ?  The  Kaiser  yet  remained  a 
great  power  for  evil,  and  the  German  nation  yet  looked  to 
him.  Of  the  two  policies,  one  spoke  for  strengthening  the 
peace,  the  other  for  breaking  up  the  British  Empire. 

Mr.  M.  H.  DoBB  :  As  a  moderate,  he  seemed  to  be 
upholding  the  enemy.  This  was  a  natural  but  mistaken 
error.  He  stood  for  the  proper  resulting  peace  of  a  war  to 
end  wars.  The  wise  policy  was  to  make  friendship  with 
Germany  and  to  strengthen  the  hands  of  the  Republic 
against  the  militarists.  A  generous  spirit  of  co-operation 
would  heal  the  wounds  and  make  a  new  Empire. 

Mr.  R.  E.  Watson  :  In  the  revolution  of  October,  191 8, 
the  Germans  knew  they  were  beaten  and  did  the  wisest 
thing.  Hindenburg  and  Ludendorff  were  still  the  great 
powers  of  Germany.  He  deplored  the  insidious  campaign 
of  impartiality.  All  parties  in  England  were  weak  on  the 
German  question  except  the  Tories. 

Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  admitted  all  the  atrocities  and 
abhorred  them,  but  considered  Germany  to  be  already 
punished  and  now  thoroughly  repentant.  It  was  for 
the  benefit  of  all  that  Germany  should  recover,  produce, 
and  lower  the  food  prices  of  Europe. 

Mr.  W.  K.  Carter  had  had  experience  in  the  Army  on 
the  Rhine.  The  German  was  repentant  when  under 
control,  but  it  was  not  a  real  repentance.  He  would  insist 
on  carrying  out  the  Peace  Treaty. 

Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury  disclaimed  any  suggestion  of  his 
being  a  pro-German.  He  could  shock  the  House  with  his 
own  experiences  in  a  German  Prison  Camp.  But  similar 
horrors  had  happened  in  British  Camps.  England  should 
adopt  and  assimilate  the  points  that  Germany  had  to  offer. 

Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  did  not  agree  that  there  were  only 
two  alternatives.  There  was  another  choice,  and  that 
was  justice.  He  did  not  desire  to  crush  Germany,  but  to 
be  just. 

Mr.  K.  Gauba  :  Europe  was  on  the  road  to  ruin  and 
economic  chaos,  but  yet  the  old  economic  poHcy  w^s  still 
upheld.  Germany  should  be  admitted  to  the  League  at 
once. 


UNION    DEBATE,   APRIL    1920  81 

Mr.  T.  B.  Jameson  had  started  with  an  open  mind, 
but  was  now  convinced  that  Germany  was  entirely  un- 
repentant.    He  insisted  on  fairness  to  France. 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  said  that  Germany's  guilt  had  been 
overdone.  President  Wilson  definitely  said  that  he  wished 
for  no  reprisal  on  the  German  people.  France  and  Belgium 
had  agreed  with  him.  We  ought  to  adopt  a  friendly  policy, 
and  not  one  that  would  turn  Germany  to  Bolshevism. 

Mr.  A,  E.  Brierley  :  Germany  as  a  whole  was  aware 
of  the  ideals  of  the  League  of  Nations,  and  believed  in  them, 

Mr.  A.  B.  Cobban  emphasised  the  importance  of 
considering  France.  France  had  always  turned  to  Britain, 
which  should  now  support  her. 

Mr.  G.  Turberville  sought  to  clean  his  own  stable 
before  cleaning  those  of  others.  Britain  must  first  destroy 
her  own  militarism. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Adgie  :  England  needed  much  that  Germany 
could  give. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald,  the  proposer,  replied,  and  the 
House  divided  : — 

Ayes,  122  ;    Noes,  75.     Majority  for  the  motion,  47. 

Second  Debate,  Tuesday,  May  4th,  1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  unrestricted  freedom  of  speech  is  essential 
to  the  best  interests  of  this  country." 

This  debate  came  as  a  result  of  certain  occurrences 
which  had  taken  place  lately  in  Cambridge,  but  though  it 
started  in  a  staid  manner,  side  issues  soon  appeared.  Party 
feelings  became  aroused,  in  which,  apparently,  the  Tory 
Party  opposed  free  speech,  while  Liberals  and  Labour 
combined  to  defend  it. 

Arguments  became  furious,  and  approached  the  province 
of  mere  mud-throwing,  but  this  ensured  a  vigorous  and 
lively  debate.  The  number  of  speakers  was  great,  and 
many  new  speakers  spoke  for  the  first  time. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  started  the  debate  by  stating  the 
issue  and  removing  possibilities  of  side  tracks.  The  motion 
did  not  intend  to  give  free  license  to  treason,  sedition  and 
blasphemy.  Freedom  of  speech  lay  at  the  root  of  British 
liberties.  Hence  the  comparatively  peaceful  internal 
history  of  England.  Obstructions  to  free  speech  produce 
internal  turmoil,     Russia  was  an  example  of  this.     Ireland 


82  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

was  an  example  nearer  to  us,  and  here  was  a  country  of 
atrocity  and  turmoil.  When  new  thoughts  exist  and 
spread  abroad,  daylight  is  always  their  best  remedy, 
whether  for  their  improvement  and  use,  or  for  their 
destruction. 

Mr.  A.  V.  BuRBURY  also  wished  to  keep  the  issue  on 
the  straight  path,  and  to  discuss  that  particular  free  speech 
that  is  used  to  sway  the  masses.  This,  in  the  majority  of 
cases,  was  produced  by  the  Press.  Evil  journals,  ruled  by 
diabolical  editors,  could  do  infinite  harm.  The  Daily 
Herald  had  great  uses  perhaps,  but  it  had  a  lamentably 
great  following.  The  Press  Bureau  had  done  great  work, 
and  should  be  continued.  The  motion  was  on  the  question 
of  the  way  in  which  freedom  of  speech  affected  the  interests 
of  the  State,  as  a  whole.  The  disturbances  of  last  term 
could  be  reduced  to  a  question  of  utility. 

Mr.  J.  A.  Gemmell  opened  in  quiet  good  humour,  and 
roused  the  house  to  considerable  merriment  as  he  proceeded. 
Suppression  of  speech  brings  suppression  of  clear  thought 
in  its  train,  with  a  resulting  sluggishness  in  the  brains  of 
the  country.  Mount  Vesuvius  overwhelmed  villages  ;  even 
so  free  speech  overwhelmed  the  wealthy  houses  of  the 
Conservative  magnates.  He  discussed  Rome,  the  Mediaeval 
Church,  Spain  and  Spaniards,  and  divers  other  interesting 
phenomena,  and  ended  by  saying  that  he  understood, 
though  only  from  hearsay,  that  in  domestic  affairs  freedom 
of  speech  was  essential. 

Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field,  as  an  ardent  supporter  of  law  and 
order,  insisted  that  revolutionary  speeches  advocating 
force  and  strife  must  be  met  by  force  and  suppressed. 
Pure  freedom  of  speech  in  Ireland  only  increased  the 
trouble  there.  There  should  be  moderation  in  all  things. 
The  great  propaganda  in  America  to  raise  hatred  against 
England  should  be  stopped,  as  should  also  the  similar 
propaganda  in  John  Bull.  The  danger  in  Cambridge  last 
term  was  that  the  presence  of  Mr.  Norman  Angell  in 
Cambridge  was  certain  to  produce  trouble.  The  vast 
majority  of  the  population  was  inarticulate,  and  ragging 
and  rioting  were  their  only  means  of  immediate  expression. 
Mr.  E.  L.  Davison:  Legislation,  ahvays  at  work, 
could  progress  but  slowly,  and  could  do  no  more  than  it 
was  then  doing.  Legislation  could  no  more  suppress  free 
speech  than  it  could  suppress  Norman  Angell. 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1920  83 

Mr.  A.  S.  Le  Maitre  saw  much  abuse  of  free  speech. 
There  was  no  harm  in  free  discussion.  But  when  a  member 
of  the  University  had  had  his  head  shaved  it  was  done  as 
righteous  punisliment.  It  happened  because  that  gentle- 
man sat  down  in  Chapel  during  the  National  Anthem. 
Public  opinion  did  the  right  thing. 

^Ir.  V.  S.  Ram  :  Constitutional  government  in  England 
had  been  successful  because  of  freedom  of  speech.  Sedition 
meant  only  disagreement  with  the  party  in  power. 

Mr.  L.  DE  G.  SiEVEKiNG  thought  that  there  could  be 
no  freedom  of  speech  on  account  of  moral  laws. 

Mr.  R.  North  AM  :  As  all  men  have  a  right  to  their 
opinions,  so  they  have  a  right  to  state  their  point  of  view. 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Secretary)  rose  to  bring  the  House 
to  a  sense  of  the  fitness  of  things.  Children  were  smacked 
for  exjjressing  their  opinions,  and  rightly  so.  Restriction 
of  speech  was  not  directed  solely  against  Labour. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Vice-President),  on  rising,  spoke 
hardly  a  dozen  words  before  a  series  of  interruptions  took 
place.  Cool  and  collected,  he  parried  and  thrust  to  the 
increasing  discomfort  of  his  adversaries.  He  welcomed 
the  first  speech  from  the  new  Tory  Leader  in  the  House. 
(Instant  interruption.)  In  his  private  capacity,  the 
Secretar}^  (point  of  order  from  the  Secretar}^)  .  .  .  would 
restrict  Labour  (sensation).  It  savoured  of  conceit.  .  .  . 
(Interruption  by  Mr.  Burbury.)  The  opposition  .  .  . 
(point  of  order  from  Mr.  Le  Maitre)  were  the  Tory  Party. 
(Prolonged  wrangle  between  the  two  office-holders.)  The 
speech  was  ended  by  a  ruling  from  the  President. 

Mr.  R.  B.  Braithwaite  spoke  against  the  motion  with 
great  violence. 

Mr.  D.  Morris  could  not  understand  where  to  draw 
the  line. 

Mr.  L.  E.  Room  defended  the  Tory  party. 

Here  the  debate  wandered  still  more  from  the  motion 
as  it  progressed  to  the  end. 

Mr.  W.  A.  Harris  supported  Labour. 

Mr.  H.  V.  A.  Raikes  wept  over  the  Tory  obsequies. 

Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  :  Suppression  produced  constant 
underground  rumblings. 

Mr.  R.  E.  Watson  was  another  wiio  defended  the  Tory 
party,  while 

Mr.  R.  B.  Meglaughlin  defended  Ulster. 


84  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  J.  DuFFiLL  said  that  both  lunatic  asylums  and 
policemen  curb  violence. 

Mr.  R.  F.  Adgie  discussed  "De  Heretico  Comburendo." 

Mr.  G.  P.  HooLE  :  The  objection  to  a  heretic  was  not 
that  he  preached  doctrines,  but  that  he  held  them. 

Mr.  H.  L.  Wilson  :  Mr.  Norman  Angell,  holding 
advanced  views,  should  have  been  allowed  to  speak,  and 
then  could  have  been  questioned. 

Mr.  R.  W.  Marsh  deplored  the  presence  of  Sinn  Fein 
agitators  in  Glasgow. 

Mr.  H.  Wilson  :  Education  is  always  increasing. 

The  Hon.  Proposer,  having  replied,  the  House  divided  : 
Ayes,  97  ;    Noes,  84.    Majority  for  the  motion,  13. 


Third    Debate,    Tuesday,    May    nth,    1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  condemns  the  Foreign  Policy 
of  the  present  Government.'^ 

After  the  fiercely  contested  second  debate  of  the  term 
it  was  only  natural  that  a  certain  warmth  should  be  the 
result  of  the  newly  awakened  political  excitement.  The 
presence  of  a  visitor  fortunately  did  not  prevent  or  curtail 
the  number  of  open  speeches,  and  the  debate  was  a  good 
one. 

Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Vice-President)  welcomed  the 
distinguished  Member  of  Parliament  to  the  Union  Society. 
He  felt  convinced  that  the  Foreign  Policy  of  the  Govern- 
ment was  a  wrong  one,  and  the  most  important  example 
of  this  was  the  Peace  Treaty.  Nothing  could  atone  for 
Germany's  crime  of  1914.  But  it  was  a  practical  question. 
Germany  should  pay  as  much  as  possible.  The  treaty  of 
Bulgaria  was  a  flat  contradiction  of  any  principle  of  self- 
determination.  Austria  must  have  coal  to  start  her 
industries.  The  Government  had  incurred  the  responsi- 
bility of  Armenia,  and  had  done  nothing.  The  telegram  to 
Marshal  Pilsudski  was  a  terrible  mistake.  The  Govern- 
ment had  produced  the  impolitic  and  unrighteous  policy 
of  a  guilty  administration. 

Mr.  I.  Macpherson  recognised  the  views  of  Mr.  Keynes 
in  the  words  of  the  Hon.  Proposer.  It  was  on  the  other 
hand,  by  a  policy  of  masterly  inactivity,  that  the  British 
Government  had  produced  so  peaceful  a  Europe  even  as 
that  at  present.     The  present  Government  had  at  least 


UNION   DEBATE,   MAY    1920  85 

carried  through  the  proposals  for  a  League  of  Nations, 
British  prestige  stood  higher  now  than  that  of  any  other 
country,  and  the  setthng  down  of  Europe  was  due  to  the 
British  Government. 

Lieut. -Commander  the  Hon.  J.  M.  Kenworthy,  R.N., 
M.P.  for  Hull,  Central,  found  difficulty  in  discovering  an}^ 
Foreign  Policy  at  all  in  that  of  the  Government.  But 
such  as  it  was,  it  had  swung  from  side  to  side,  creating 
friction,  laying  the  seeds  of  future  trouble  and  setthng 
nothing.  The  trade  of  Germany  must  first  be  started 
before  she  could  pay  the  indemnity.  She  now  lay  beaten 
and  crushed.  With  regard  to  Russia,  he  held  the  view 
that  a  Communist  state  could  exist  happily  and  be  no 
menace  to  a  Capitalist  state.  Britain  now  controlled  one 
quarter  of  the  earth's  surface,  and  apparently  for  the 
interests  of  Britain  only.  He  made  a  bitter  attack  on  the 
cessions  to  Greece,  the  petty  traders  of  the  Levant,  who 
would  have  fought  against  us  but  for  the  guns  of  the 
British  Fleet  at  Athens.  The  Opposer  had  said  that  time 
would  solve  these  difficulties.  That  was  possible.  Most 
of  the  children  under  4  years  in  Austria  were  dead. 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Secretary)  was  glad  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  hearing  and  opposing  so  redoubtable  an  opponent 
as  the  Member  for  Central  Hull.  The  country  had  fought 
for  five  years  for  this  peace.  It  must  not  be  thrown  away 
by  an  inflexible  rigidity.  The  Government's  Foreign 
Policy  must  necessaril}'  be  flexible.  Bolshevism  was  the 
enemy  of  Russia  itself.  The  British  Government,  by 
watching  events,  and  by  its  later  overtures  to  the  Co- 
operative Societies  in  Russia,  had  followed  the  only  wise 
policy. 

Mr.  V.  W.  W.  S.  PuRCELL  :  The  Government's  attitude 
towards  Poland  was  derogatory  in  the  extreme.  With  the 
one  hand  Britain  waved  to  Poland,  with  the  other  it 
welcomed  Russia. 

Mr.  L.  E.  Room  upheld  Britain's  attitude  to  Poland. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp  bewailed  the  utter  insincerity  of  the 
Government.  Peace  was  essential,  and  every  nation  had 
the  right  to  decide  its  own  form  of  government.  The 
Government  encouraged  aggression  by  giving  its  moral 
support. 

Mr.  W.  K.  Carter  :  When  this  country  had  extracted 
reparation,  then  only  could  it  be  blamed  for  the  deaths  of 
children. 


86.  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  K.  Gauba  :  The  desires  of  the  new  subjects  of  the 
Empire  had  not  been  asked.  They  were  apparently 
ignored. 

Mr.  S.  V.  T.  Adams  said  that  every  Government 
laboured  under  difficulties. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Barnes  :  Diplomacy  and  selfishness  covered 
everything. 

Mr.  C.  M.  Haines  :  Those  who  were  responsible  for  the 
war  should  make  reparation, 

Mr.  C.  L.  Bennett  did  not  fear  to  be  called  a  Pacifist, 
because  by  being  that  he  was  a  true  patriot. 

Mr.  R.  W.  Gurney  suggested  a  compromise. 

The  Hon.  Proposer  waived  his  light  of  reply  in  favour 
of  Lieut. -Commander  Kenworthy.  The  House  then 
divided.  There  appeared  : — Ayes,  115;  Noes,  87.  Majority 
for  the  motion,  28. 


Fourth   Debate,  Tuesday,   May  i8th,    1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  should  welcome  the  admission 
of  Women  to  all  privileges  of  this  University  in  full  equality 
with  menJ^ 

This  debate  was  a  short  one,  and  was  but  a  prehminary 
to  a  most  momentous  ceremony  in  the  annals  of  the 
Society,  which  took  place  after  the  conclusion  of  the  debate. 
A  description  of  the  latter  is  given  below  after  the  last 
debate  of  the  term. 

As  there  were  no  visitors  present,  and  admittance  to 
the  house  could  be  secured  by  ticket  only,  a  crowded  but 
orderly  house  took  part  in  this  discussion  of  the  rights  of 
the  fairer  sex.  The  participation  of  a  number  of  members 
of  the  Syndicate  appointed  by  the  Senate,  who  had 
previously  considered  the  problem  officially,  added  greatly 
to  the  debate. 

Mr.  J.  T.  Sheppard  (ex- President)  opened  the  debate 
in  characteristic  vein.  He  had  always  been  in  favour  of 
women  suffrage,  but  had  not  expected  it  to  come  in  his 
time.  Now  he  was  faced  with  the  admission  of  women  to 
the  University,  and  faced  it  with  resolute  courage.  He 
discussed  the  two  reports  of  the  Syndicate  appointed  by 
the  Senate,  and  supported  the  report  that  favoured 
separate  colleges  for  men  and  women.     The  admission  to 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1920  87 

Matriculation  and  to  Degrees  must  follow,  and  later, 
necessarily,  membership  of  the  Senate.  The  honours  and 
posts  in  the  University  should  be  open  to  the  best  candi- 
dates, regardless  of  sex. 

Mr.  P.  L.  Babington  took  the  question  very  seriously. 
After  the  charming  eloquence  and  delightful  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Sheppard,  he  wished  to  bring  the  house  to  the  reahsa- 
tion  of  the  horrors  involved.  Co-education  was  not  yet  a 
demonstrated  success.  The  effect  of  co-education  would 
be  the  end  of  all  that  is  cherished  in  Universit}^  life  to-day. 

Mr.  E.  L.  Davison  :  Co-education  could  be  evaded 
no  longer.  Woman  had  earned  her  righteous  reward, 
and  must  be  taken  seriously.  She  must  pass  from  her 
position  as  an  amateur  to  that  of  a  professional.  Her 
competition  would  not  endanger  man's  prestige. 

Mr,  J.  H,  Barnes  examined  the  suggested  schemes, 
and  found  all  impossible.  He  did  not  pretend  to  stand  on  a 
pinnacle  in  his  masculinity,  but  retained  his  old  opinions. 
The  sexes  are  complementary  and  their  functions  collateral. 

Mr,  J,  R.  M.  Butler  (ex- President)  supported  the 
motion  on  grounds  of  expediency.  The  facts  should  be 
faced.  The  University  was  now  co-educational  in  actual 
fact,  whatever  it  might  pretend  to  be. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  is  an  authority  on  nursery 
rhymes,  but  he  would  abolish  Newnham  and  Girton  with 
glee  and  gusto.  The  women's  colleges  create  nothing  but 
disturbance  in  an  otherwise  calm  and  studious  University. 

Mr.  A.  V.  BuRBURY  felt  soothed  and  softened  by  che 
refining  influence  of  the  women's  colleges.  He  desired 
more  co-operation  and  a  removal  of  artificial  barriers. 

Mr.  J.  F.  A.  North  opposed  the  motion,  but  retained  his 
admiration  for  the  fairer  sex.  He  desired  to  keep  woman 
on  her  pedestal, 

Mr.  A,  Henderson,  on  account  of  the  surplus  of 
women,  desired  to  secure  a  remedy. 

Mr.  C.  L.  Wiseman  (ex-Secretary)  depicted  the  horrors  of 
the  teaching  profession,  and  desired  to  save  women  from  it. 

Mr.  A.  D.  McNair  (ex-President)  saw  that  women  were 
now  compelled  to  earn  their  own  livings,  and  should  there- 
fore have  full  advantages  for  so  doing. 

Mr.  F.  K.  H.  BosTOCK  deplored  the  motion  as  being 
unjust  to  the  male  protectors  of  womenkind. 


88  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan  welcomed  women  to  Parliament 
and  to  the  Bar,  and  desired  everything  for  their  better 
advantage. 

The  Hon.  Proposer  having  repHed,  the  House  divided  : 
Ayes,  365  ;   Noes,  266.    Majority  for  the  motion,  99. 


Fifth    Debate,    Tuesday,    May    25th,    1920. 

Motion  :  ' '  That,  in  the  opinion  of  this  House,  Co-Partner- 
ship  would  provide  a  better  solution  for  the  present  industrial 
unrest  than  Nationalisation.'^ 

This  debate  took  place  on  a  hot  summer  evening,  and 
the  temperature  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the  argu- 
ments seemed  almost  to  rival  the  temperature  of  the  air. 
Not  once  or  twice  only  did  passion  get  the  better  of  reason. 
The  first  four  speeches  were  long,  but  the  interruptions 
made  them  exciting.  A  heavy  piston  head  running  white 
hot  can  only  do  itself  harm.  Even  so  do  ebullitions  of 
temper  damage  the  causes  of  the  furious. 

Perhaps  certain  ultra-socialistic  views  rather  startled 
the  conservative  minds  of  some  members.  But  as  these 
views  exist  very  strongly  among  the  masses  of  the  country, 
it  would  be  strange  if  they  could  not  be  discussed  quietly 
in  the  House.     Indeed,  it  was  strange. 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Secretary)  rose  to  propose  a 
motion  which  was  a  favourite  subject  of  his  own.  There 
were  only  two  proposed  solutions  for  the  present  industrial 
unrest  :  Co-partnership  and  Nationahsation.  No  addi- 
tional wealth  can  be  accumulated  from  the  existing  wealth 
without  the  help  of  Labour.  Labour  desires  to  see  the 
fruits  of  its  toil.  He  suggested  that  every  man  should 
consider  himself  as  capital.  He  is  his  own  wealth.  When 
he  goes  to  work  he  should  understand  that  he  is  investing 
his  own  wealth,  that  is  himself,  in  the  business.  He  should 
then  be  paid  proportional  and  definite  dividends  or  shares 
of  the  profit.  Every  man  must  have  some  responsibility 
for  his  own  good.    Co-partnership  would  supply  this. 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  :  The  worker  of  to-day  says,  "  My 
wage  is  this  ;  my  cost  of  hving  is  that  ;  I  cannot  Hve." 
The  employer  gives  more  w^ages  and  raises  the  cost  of  living 
correspondingly.  The  workers  are  realising  their  own 
importance  to  the  community.  Co-partnership  will  not 
reduce   the   cost   of  hving   nor  will   it   stop   profiteering. 


UNION    DEBATE,   MAY    1920  89 

Nationalisation  means  State  ownership  of  industry  with 
joint  control  by  the  consumers,  managers  and  workers. 

Mr.  S.  Cope  Morgan  :  The  present  vicious  circle  was 
intolerable  :  strikes  ;  rise  of  wages  ;  rise  of  prices.  The 
class  prejudice  stirred  up  by  the  Labour  Party,  was  at  the 
bottom  of  the  trouble.  Nationalisation  was  not  a  principle. 
it  was  a  disease.  Productivity  could  never  come  without 
goodwill  in  industry.  There  must  be  a  common  basis  of 
understanding.  All  the  world  is  composed  of  snobs.  Even 
the  bedmakers  of  Trinity  are  snobs.  Unless  Labour  ceases 
to  preach  class-feeling,  it  will  never  do  good.  Capital 
must  be  made  to  accept  its  due  return  and  no  more,  but  it 
must  be  allowed  its  right  and  honourable  position  in 
industry. 

Rev.  C.  E.  Raven  attacked  the  systems  propounded 
with  such  vigour  as  to  produce  constant  interruptions. 
Prices  would  rise  more  than  ever  under  a  system  of  co- 
partnership. Co-partnership  was  a  system  made  by  well- 
meaning  men  of  business  who  hated  slavery  of  labour  and 
who  longed  for  a  new  spirit  in  industry.  But  the  movement 
gave  to  the  worker  neither  a  true  status  in  industry  nor 
industrial  success.  Labour  knew  that  co-partnership  would 
undermine  the  minimum  wage.  It  w^as  simply  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  same  old  competitive  firms,  sheer  undiluted 
greed,  and  a  continuance  of  the  profits  which  they  could 
get  from  the  unfortunate  consumers.  Real  nationalisation 
with  the  best  ideals  could  save  the  country. 

Mr.  A.  V.  BuRBURY  cited  Henry  Ford  as  a  man  who 
had  showed  that  profit-sharing  could  work. 

Mr.  T.  G.  N.  Haldane  :  The  new  spirit  demanded 
nationalisation.  The  attitude  of  the  owners  was  one 
insisting  on  complete  control,  a  short-sighted  poHcy. 

Mr.  G.  R.  D.  Shaw  had  always  been  sceptical  of  vain 
chatter  about  brotherhood. 

Mr,  M.  H.  DoBB  :  Co-partnership  would  strengthen 
economic  autocracy.  Competition  had  ceased,  and  the 
present  system  was  one  of  combination  in  industry. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Sharp,  from  the  cross-benches,  proposed 
nationalisation  for  some  industries,  co-partnership  for 
others. 

Mr.  E.  H.  RosEVEARE  :  Workers  hate  their  work,  so 
did  he. 

Mr.  T.  H.  Seari.s  :  There  was  nothing  in  co-partnership 
to  prevent  the  exploitation  of  the  consumer. 


go  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  W.  K.  Carter  :  This  country  must  control  her 
monopohes. 

Mr.  V.  W.  W.  S.  PuRCELL  attacked  any  system  which 
was  not  open  and  fair  to  the  workers. 

Mr.  H.  V.  A.  Raikes  :  Material  gain  is  the  basis  of  all 
work. 

Mr.  L.A.Abraham  (Vice-President)  attacked  vigorously, 
but  the  Secretary,  remembering  the  last  debate,  and  being 
already  exhausted,  refused  to  bite  at  the  flies  thrown  at 
him.  He  taunted  the  proposers  of  the  motion  with  the 
land-song  of  the  Liberals  in  the  election  of  1910.  The 
spirit  of  Democracy  was  on  the  side  of  Labour,  and  so  also 
was  Time. 

Mr.  G.  TuRBERViLLE  saw  only  trouble  ahead  in  national- 
isation. 

Mr.  J.  H.  Richardson  had  great  belief  in  the  working- 
man  and  in  the  democracy  of  the  country. 

The  Secretary  having  replied,  the  House  divided  : — 
Ayes,  92  ;    Noes,  51.    Majority  for  the  motion,  41. 

Sixth  Debate,  Tuesday,  June  ist,   1920. 

Motion  :  ' '  That  this  House  would  welcome  the  grant  of 
Dominion  Home  Rule  to  India  in  the  near  future." 

This  debate  took  place  in  the  most  strenuous  week  of 
Tripos  and  Examination.  For  a  controversial  subject 
there  was  not  so  much  heat  as  might  have  been  expected. 
Mr.  J.  T.  Sheppard  (ex-President,  King's  College)  took 
the  chair  in  the  middle  of  the  debate,  and  was  enabled  to 
give  a  casting  vote  on  the  division,  an  unusual  occurrence. 

Mr.  P.  J.  Griffiths  spoke  of  India's  loyalty  to  the 
Empire  during  the  war.  She  now  claimed  her  reward. 
Two  possible  lines  of  argument  were  open  to  the  Opposi- 
tion, either  that  the  British  Empire  was  in  danger,  or  that 
the  civilisation  of  India  was  not  sufficiently  advanced  for 
Home  Rule.  The  safety  of  the  Empire  depended  not  on 
guns,  but  on  solidarity  and  a  spirit  of  loyalty. 

Mr.  P.  N.  W.  Strong  said  that  the  time  was  not  yet 
ripe.  In  India  94  per  cent,  of  the  population  were  illiterate 
and  entirely  uneducated.  India  was  not  a  nation.  In 
comparison  with  India,  the  old  Austrian  Empire  was  a 
model  of  unity.  He  favoured  the  propositions  of  the 
Montagu-Chelmsford  Report,  and  desired  evolution  rather 
than  revolution. 


UNION   DEBATE,   MAY    1920  91 

Mr.  K.  Gauba,  as  an  Indian,  claimed  to  speak  with 
more  authority  than  an  EngHshman.  India  should  have 
either  a  policy  of  complete  repression  or  one  of  complete 
liberty.  If  India  consisted  of  twelve  separate  nations,  let 
them  all  have  Home  Rule.  The  deliberate  policy  of  Great 
Britain  had  been  to  keep  India  divided.  He  wanted,  above 
all,  control  of  finance  and  the  fiscal  policy. 

Mr.  L.  E.  Room  :  The  function  of  the  British  was  to 
keep  the  balance  between  the  various  factions.  The 
benefits  of  British  Rule  were  forgotten  amongst  the  lesser 
troubles.     India  lived  in  a  time  of  unexampled  prosperity. 

Mr.  B.  H.  Zaidi  acknowledged  the  debt  of  India  to 
England.  He  complained  that  50  per  cent,  of  the  Budget 
went  to  the  Army. 

Ml.  J,  R.  Smith  had  direct  information  about  the  riots 
at  Amritzar,  and  of  the  unstable  state  of  India. 

Mr.  W  D.  Johnston  spoke  of  Democracy.  If  India 
could  not  govern  itself,  it  was  not  the  duty  of  England  to 
govern  her. 

Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  :  Caste  was  a  very  real  thing. 
Democratic  government,  with  caste  in  operation,  was 
impossible. 

Mr.  J.  L.  Kapur  :  Indian  civilisation  would  be  happier 
without  that  of  England. 

Mr.  T.  A.  Bold  defended  General  Dyer. 

Mr.  T.  A.  Sinclair  cited  the  treatment  of  other 
Dominions  by  Britain,  and  claimed  the  same  for  India, 

Mr.  L.  DE  G.  SiEVEKiNG  :  If  the  Pax  Britannicum  were 
removed  from  India,  would  the  Indian  members  of  the 
House  go  back  there  to  live  ? 

Mr.  K.  M.  Khadye  :  High  and  low  castes  were  no\\ 
uniting  to  form  an  Indian  nation. 

Mr.  S.  V.  T.  Adams  :  Nationally  speaking,  India  was 
yet  a  baby,  and  was  too  young  for  self-government. 

Mr.  E.  L.  Davison  :  Home  Rule  in  India  would 
strengthen  the  power  of  Britain, 

Mr.  A.  vS.  Le  Maitre  :  England  was  giving  all  she  could 
to  India. 

Mr.  G.  G,  Sharp  :  Indians  should  control  Finance  and 
Education.  India  would  be  ripe  for  Government  in  ten 
years. 

Mr.  G.  GoviNDARAjULU  :  India  should  not  be  granted 
Home  Rule.    She  should  rise  up  and  take  it. 

H 


92  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Mr.  C.  L.  Bennet  spoke  allegorically,  and  compared 
New  Zealand. 

Mr.  L.  G.  Haywood  opposed  the  motion. 

Mr.  H.  N.  Davy  had  been  in  India,  and  believed  in 
Home  Rule. 

On  a  division  there  appeared  : — Ayes,  82  ;  Noes,  82. 
The  Chairman  gave  his  casting  vote  against  the  motion. 
Majority  against  the  motion,  i. 


Change  of  Officers'  Debate,  Tuesday,  June  8th,  1920. 

Motion  :  "  That  this  House  is  of  opinion  that  the  time  has 
C07ne  when  an  appeal  should  again  be  made  to  the  electorate.'^ 
As  has  been  the  custom  for  generations,  the  final  debate 
of  a  term  revolves  on  the  doings  and  misdoings  of  the 
Government  in  power.     After  the  results  of  the  poll  for 
the  election  of  officers  for  the  ensuing  year  had  been  read, 
the  new  officers  took  their  seats,  and  laudatory  speeches 
were  made.    The  poll  was  announced  as  follows  : 
President  :  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham  (Peterhouse). 
Vice-President:  Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Christ's). 
Treasurer  :  Mr.  A.  D.  McNair  (Gonville  and  Caius). 
Librarian  :  Mr.  B.  G.  Brown  (Trinity). 
Steward:  Mr.  S.  C.   Roberts  (Pembroke). 
Secretary  :  Mr.  G.  G.  Shard  (Fitzwilliam  Hall). 
Standing  Committee  :  Mr.  G.  W.  Theobald  (Emmanuel). 

Mr.  A.  Henderson  (Trinity  Hall). 

Mr.  A.  V.  Burbury  (King's). 

Mr.  E.  L.  Davison  (St.  John's). 

Mr.  D.  T.  C.  Field  (Emmanuel). 

Mr.  M.  H.  Dobb  (Pembroke). 

The  most  striking  feature  of  the  debate  was  the  moment 
in  which  the  distinguished  visitor,  the  Right  Hon.  Stanley 
Baldwin,  P.C,  M.P.,  repudiated  the  accusation  of  expedi- 
ency, and  spoke  his  mind  on  the  subject  of  true  idealism, 
and  how  it  exists  in  all  good  faith  in  the  Government. 

Mr.  D.  M.  Reid  (retiring  President)  pointed  out  that 
the  Government  had  taken  advantage  of  the  prevailing 
enthusiasm  to  rush  through  a  General  Election  in  191 8, 
with  the  cries  :  "Hang  the  Kaiser"  and  "Make  Germany 
pay."  He  touched  upon  Ireland,  and  reminded  the  House 
of  the   parallel   of  the   War  of  American    Independence. 


UNION   DEBATE,    JUNE    1920  93 

Time  would  show  that  the  Government's  poHcy  was 
equally  wrong  in  Ireland.  Turning  to  finance,  he  had 
formerly  been  convinced  that  there  was  at  any  rate 
one  honest  man  in  the  Government,  Mr.  Chamberlain. 
He  regretted  therefore  that  the  Big  Business  Interests 
caused  him  to  vacillate  over  Excess  Profits  Duty.  Labour, 
on  the  whole,  had  given  fair  support  to  the  Government. 
But  the  exceptions  in  the  matter  of  shipping  munitions  to 
Poland  and  the  case  of  Ireland  could  not  be  defended. 
Russia  showed  the  lack  of  a  policy  in  the  Government's 
attitude.  The  League  of  Nations  was  practically  dead, 
and  the  blame  lay  upon  the  shoulders  of  the  Government. 
The  country  was  now  cool-headed.  The  time  was  ripe 
for  another  appeal  to  the  people. 

Mr.  J.  W.  Morris  (ex- President)  :  The  Government 
was  like  a  college  kitchen  ;  it  was  always  being  criticised, 
but  managed  to  pick  up  a  bit  in  Ma}'  Week.  A  mass  of 
progressive  legislation  had  been  put  through  by  the 
Government.  Instances  were  to  be  found  in  health, 
transport  and  land.  The  Government  had  decided  rightly 
that  its  first  duty  was  to  govern  Ireland.  The  fruits  of  their 
policy  could  only  be  reaped  by  continuing  to  give  the 
Government  a  fair  chance  to  which  their  experience  and 
abilit}'  entitled  them.  Considering  the  unparalleled  crisis 
through  which  Britain  had  been,  the  state  of  British  credit 
and  prosperity  was  marvellous.  He  saw  no  alternative 
Government  either  in  the  Liberal  or  Labour  parties.  The 
only  alternative  was  another  coalition.  At  the  present 
time  the  country  needed  not  a  general  election,  but  a  spirit 
of  coalition  and  unity  in  the  country. 

Mr.  C.  R.  Fay  criticised  the  General  Election  of  191 8. 
Its  purpose  was  to  give  the  Premier  a  majority  in  his 
pocket  by  using  the  prevailing  enthusiasm.  The  Premier 
treated  all  his  opponents  as  unpatriotic,  and  invited 
England  to  enter  the  path  of  crude  violence.  The  new 
life  of  peace  had  been  started  with  the  lie  that  Germany 
would  pay.  Undoubtedly  Labour,  if  returned  to  power, 
meant  to  nationalise  the  coal  industry  and  the  railways,  but 
this  did  not  mean  an  involved  centralised  bureaucracy. 
He  appealed  to  the  Government  to  stand  aside  and  to  let 
the  supporters  of  Home  Rule  have  a  chance.  Politics  were 
changing,  and  new  unrepresented  classes  were  emerging. 
The  Premier's  policy  meant  an  estrangement  between 
classes  for  twenty  years. 


94  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

The  Right  Hon.  Stanley  Baldwin,  P.C,  M.P.  for 
Worcestershire,  Bewdley,  did  not  see  how  the  Premier,  as 
an  honest  man,  could  have  avoided  holding  a  general 
election  in  191 8.  The  Franchise  Act  had  enlarged  the 
electorate,  and  the  Parliament  had  been  elected  eight 
years  before.  The  Peace  Conference  was  imminent,  and 
it  was  imperative  that  the  Premier  should  go  to  it  armed 
with  the  authority  of  the  British  people. 

In  his  opinion  the  old  party  system  was  dead.  There 
was  no  room  for  the  old  parties,  but  there  was  still  room 
for  a  party  representing  the  Conservative  instincts  of  the 
country. 

The  Government  had  taken  up  many  tasks.  Education 
had  produced  Mr.  Fisher's  Act.  He  explained  the  diffi- 
culties in  dealing  with  the  Excess  Profits  Duty.  It  was 
impossible  to  capture  the  whole  of  the  profits  made  out  of 
the  war,  but  no  surer  means  could  have  been  devised  than 
the  Income  Tax,  the  Super  Tax  and  the  E.P.D. 

The  Labour  Party  was  young  and  enthusiastic,  but  he 
would  deeply  regret  it  if  politics  became  a  contest  of 
Labour  v.  the  Rest.  The  propaganda  of  class  warfare  and 
hate  filled  him  with  depression.  It  brought  death,  not  life. 
The  spirit  of  love  was  what  was  needed,  and  would  alone 
sustain  them  amid  the  dust  and  dirt  of  public  life. 

Mr.  C.  L.  Wiseman  (ex-Secretary)  had  voted  for 
Mr.  Lloyd  George  because  he  had  thought  he  was  honest, 
and  would  not  let  himself  become  the  tool  of  vested 
interests.     He  was  now  sadly  disillusioned. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  said  that  if  the  present  House 
of  Commons  was  unrepresentative  it  was  the  fault  not  of 
the  Government,  but  of  the  people  who  put  them  into 
power. 

The  House  divided,  and  there  appeared  : — Ayes,  129  ; 
Noes,  135.    Majority  against  the  motion,  6. 

PRIVATE    BUSINESS    MEETING. 

Honorary  Membership  of  Viscount  Jellicoe  and 

Earl  Haig. 

Tuesday,   May    i8th,    1920. 

Soon  after  10  p.m.,  the  ceremony  of  conferring  the 
Honorary  Membership  of  the  Society  upon  the  two  great 
leaders  of  the  nation  in  war  began.     Into  the  House,  with 


UNION    DEBATE,    JUNE    1920  95 

members  standing,  amid  deafening  applause,  the  President 
led  Viscount  Jellicoe  and  Earl  Haig,  followed  by  Dr.  Giles 
(Vice-Chancellor),  Dr.  J.  E.  McTaggart  (Treasurer),  Dr. 
J.  N.  Keynes  (Registrary),  Rev.  G.  A.  Weekes  (Master  of 
Sidney  Sussex),  and  Paymaster-Captain  Weekes,  R.N. 

The  President  took  the  chair,  and  Mr.  L.  A.  Abraham 
(Vice-President)  rose  to  move  : 

^^That  Honorary  Membership  be  conferred  upon  Admiral 
of  the  Fleet,   Viscount  Jellicoe,  K.C.B.,  O.M.,  K.C.V.O." 

With  his  noted  Irish  eloquence,  the  Vice-President 
voiced  the  sentiments  of  all  when  he  said  that  where  great 
deeds  are  concerned  w^e  cannot  speak  of  them,  but  we  can 
alwaj'S  think  of  them.  The  Society  wished  to  record  its 
profound  sense  of  admiration  to  the  noble  Viscount  as  a 
sailor,  a  commander,  and  as  a  man. 

Mr.  E.  H.  F.  Morris  (Secretary)  rose  to  the  occasion 
and  seconded  the  motion  in  a  confident  maijner. 

Dr.  J.  E.  McTaggart  (Treasurer)  moved  : 

' '  That  Honorary  Membership  be  conferred  upon  Field- 
Marshal  Earl  Haig,  K.T.,  G.C.B.,  O.M.,  G.C.V.O.,  K.C.I.E. 

Though  the  Union  Society  is  one  where  youth  leads  and 
takes  precedence,  3^et  the  older  members  w^ere  still  members, 
and  he  was  glad  to  join  the  voices  of  the  older  members 
with  those  of  the  younger  in  welcoming  the  two  great 
guests  to  the  Union.  He  was  especially  glad  that  he,  a 
Cliftonian,  was  able  to  welcome  to  the  University  and  to 
the  Society  Earl  Haig,  the  greatest  of  all  Cliftonians. 

Mr.  G.  G.  Grose  Hodge  seconded  the  motion  in  a 
happy  speech.  He  claimed  for  the  House  the  bond  of 
common  service  with  their  great  guest,  in  the  course  of 
which  service  he  had  learned  to  honour  and  revere  him. 

The  President  then  put  the  two  motions  to  the  House, 
which  signified  its  unanimous  assent  by  members  rising 
in  their  places. 

Admiral  of  the  Fleet,  Viscount  Jellicoe,  amidst 
tremendous  applause,  thanked  the  House  for  its  vote,  and 
complimented  it  on  its  eloquence.  He  had  been  reading  an 
article  in  which  the  British  Oificer  had  been  described  as 
lacking  in  intelligence.  The  chief  quality  in  leadership  is 
character.  And  nowheie  is  character  so  finely  moulded 
as  at  the  University.  As  long  as  the  Universities  last  we 
should  have  no  lack  of  men  fitted  to  be  leaders. 


96  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

The  House  was  delighted  by  the  speech  of  Viscount 
Jelhcoe,  which  was  as  well  turned  and  eloquent,  and  at 
the  same  time  as  direct,  as  any  model  of  oratory. 

Field-Marshal  Earl  Haig,  who  was  greeted  with  pro- 
longed and  vociferous  applause,  thanked  the  House  in  the 
kindliest  way,  addressing  members  as  comrades  and 
fellows.  He  sketched  the  state  of  the  country  before  the 
war.  When  Lord  Haldane  went  to  the  War  Office  a  system 
was  at  last  decided  upon — an  Expeditionary  Force, 
designed  for  service  on  the  continent,  and  a  large  Terri- 
torial Reserve.  But  war  came  before  the  scheme  could 
bear  fruit,  and  on  the  outbreak  of  war  we  were  forced 
again  to  improvisation — where  men  who  should  have  been, 
leaders  were  allowed  to  fight  and  die  as  private  soldiers. 
The  object  of  education  was  to  fit  a  man  for  citizenship. 
Citizenship  connotes  the  duty  to  defend  one's  country — 
and  will  do  so  for  many  years.  Each  man  must  see  that  he 
is  fitted  to  take  his  place  in  the  defence  of  his  country. 

The  newly-elected  Honorary  Members  signed  their 
names  in  the  book  of  membership,  and  the  House  then, 
adjourned. 

After  the  officers  and  members  of  Committee  had  been 
introduced  to  the  distinguished  Honorary  Members  in  the 
Committee  Room,  the  latter  passed  through  a  lane  of 
vociferous  members  who  made  the  sleeping  town  of 
Cambridge  re-echo  with  their  cheers. 


Criticisms. 

Senior  Members  of  the  University,  Visitors  and  ex- 
Presidents  have  been  omitted  from  this  list. 

Abraham,   L.  A.   (Peterhouse)     Vigorous,  well-informed, 

and  brilliant  in  attack.    A  master  of  repartee.    The 

Burke  of  the  Union. 
Adams,  S.  V.  T.  (King's)     Original  and  considered. 
Adgie,   R.   F.   (Clare)     Possesses  the  lighter  touch,  and 

should  speak  more  often. 
Barnes,  J.  H.  (St.  John's)     Is  always  interesting;  works 

in  his  own  way  and  is  invariably  clear. 
Bennet,  C.  L.  (Jesus)    Has  ideas,  but  should  avoid  being 

diffuse. 
Braithwaite,  R.  B.  (King's)     Could  be  very  good  if  he 

spoke  more. 


CRITICISMS  97 

BuRBURY,    A.    V.    (King's)     Ponderous    in    attack,    but 

carries  conviction. 
Carter,    W.    K.    (Sidney    Sussex)      With    an    improved 

delivery  would  be  good. 
Davison,  E.  L.  (St.  John's)    Possesses  an  artistic  sense  that 

is  a  welcome  change. 
DoBB,  ]\I.  H.  (Pembroke)    The  best  of  the  ^^ounger  speakers. 

A  good  delivery  and  perfect  English. 
Field,   D.  T.   C.  (Emmanuel)    A  refreshing  Tory  with  a 

nautical  flavour, 
Gauba,  K.  (Downing)    Reasoned  and  moderate.    Good. 
Gemmell,  J.  A.  (Emmanuel)     Witty  and  amusing. 
Griffiths,   P.  J.  (Peterhouse)     With  improved  delivery 

will  be  good. 
Grose  Hodge,  G.  G.  (Pembroke)    A  redoubtable  opponent 

and    an    immovable    Tory.     Good  in    attack    and 

defence. 
Haldane,  T.  G.  N.  (Trinity)    Will  improve  with  more  fire. 
Harris,   W.   A.    (St.    John's)     Would   make   a   powerful 

agitator. 
Henderson,  A.  (Trinity  Hall)     Very  well  informed.     A 

good  speaker. 
HooLE,  G.   P.  (Christ's)     Knows  his  subject  and  should 

speak  more  often. 
Le  Maitre,  a.  S.  (St.  John's)    Has  improved  a  great  deal. 

Sound  and  sometimes  brilliant. 
Macpherson,  I.  (Trinity)    Speaks  with  the  hard  common 

sense  of  his  race. 
Morris,  E.  H.  F.  (Christ's)    A  master  of  tactics  ;  scintil- 
lates when  opening  attack  ;  fiery  in  repartee.    Very 

good. 
North,  J.  F.  A.  (Downing)     An  authority  on  the  Press. 

Good. 
Northam,    R.    (Queens')     Well   versed   on   trade   topics. 

Interesting  and  forcible. 
PuRCELL,  V.  W.  W.  S.  (Trinity)     Shows  promise. 
Raikes,  H.  V.  A.  (Trinity)    Good  in  attack. 
Ram,  V.  S.  (Emmanuel)     Excitable,  but  interesting. 
Richardson,    J.    H.    (Emmanuel)     Well    versed    in    his 

subjects. 
Room,  L.  E.  (Corpus)    With  more  care  will  be  useful. 
Searls,  T.  H.  (Trinity  Hall)     Reasoned   and    honest.    A 

good  speaker. 


98  DEMOSTHENES   DEMOBILISED 

Sharp,  G.  G.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall)  Perhaps  the  fairest  and 
least  biassed  of  the  Union  speakers.  Very  well 
read,  has  an  excellent  style,  and  is  never  dull. 
Has  a  certain  and  assured  future. 

SiEVEKiNG,  L.  de  G.  (St.  Catharine's)  If  he  would  take 
subjects  more  seriously  might  be  good. 

Strong,  P.  N.  W.  (Selwyn)  Witty  and  clever.  Should 
practise  speaking  with  fewer  notes. 

Theobald,  G.  W.  (Emmanuel)  Has  ability  and  a  pretty 
and  light  humour.  Dangerous  both  in  attack  and 
defence,  but  always  sincere. 

TuRBERViLLE,  G.  (Trinity)    Original  and  amusing. 

Watson,    R.    E.    (St.    Catharine's)      Takes    considerable 

pains  and  makes  a  good  speech.  1 

Wilson,  H.  L.  (Emmanuel)  Shows  originality  and  know- 
ledge of  his  subject. 

The  following  also  spoke,  but  fair  criticism  based  on 
one  speech  is  impossible  : — 
Bold,  T.  A.   (Corpus) 
BosTOCK,  F.  E.  H.  (Queens') 
Brierley,  a.  E.  (Peterhouse) 
Cobban,  A.  B.  (Gonville  and  Caius) 
Davy,  H.  N.  (King's) 
GoviNDARAjULU  (Magdalene) 
GuRNEY,  R.  W.  (Trinity  Hall) 
Haines,  C.  M.  (Pembroke) 
Haywood,  L.  G.  (Gonville  and  Caius) 
Jameson,  T.  B.  (Queens') 
Johnston,  W.  D.  (Christ's) 
Kapur,  J.  L.  (Magdalene) 
Marsh,  R.  W.  (Trinity) 
Meglaughlin,  R.   B.  (Jesus) 
Morris,  D.  (Christ's) 
Roseveare,  E.  H.    (St.  John's) 
Shaw,  G.  R.  D.  (King's) 
Sinclair,  T.  A.  (St.   John's) 
Wilson,  H.  (Peterhouse) 
Zaidi,  B.  H.  (Fitzwilliam  Hall) 


Index    of   Names 


Abraham,  L.  A.     9,  12,  17,  21,  33, 
38.  42,  43,  46,  52,  54,  56,  71. 
74,  78,  83,  84,  90,  92,  95,  96 
Adams,  S.  V.  T.     86,  91,  96 
Adgie,  R.  F.     11,  81,  84,  96 
Albert,  H.R.H.  Prince     25,  27,  38, 

55.  65 
Allen,  J.  E.     37 
Arundel,  E.  S.     25,  46 
Attwater,  A.  L.     70 
Aziz,  Abdul     42,  47 

Babington,  P.  L.     87 

Baldwin,  Right  Hon.  Stanley,  M.P. 

94 
Barnes,  J,  H.     6,  7,  8,  18,  22,  23,  31, 

43.  47.  52.  54.  69,  74.  86,  87.  96 
Barran,  H.  V.  F.     6,  35,  37,  47 
Bennet,  C.  L.     64,  71,  74,  86,  92,  96 
Berlyn,  M.  L.     33,  47 
Best,  C.  P.     II,  12,  18,  22,  23,  25,  34 

43.  47.  63.  74 
Bidder,  G.  P.     37 
Bold,  T.  A.     43,  47,  91,  98 
Bostock,  F.  E.  H.     87,  98 
Bousfield,  J.  K.     11 
Bowman,  C.  B.     64,  74 
Braithwaite,  R.  B.     83,  96 
Brierley,  A.  E.     58,  64,  75,  81,  98 
Brown,  B.  G.     5,  7,  52,  92 
Brown,  Stanley.     44,  79 
Buck,  S.  H.     II 
BuUough,  E.     5,  7,  52 
Burbury,  A.  V.     33,  35,  42,  47,  56, 

71,  75,  78,  80,  82,  87,  89,  92,  97 
Butler,  J.  R.  M.     29,  54,  87 

Carroll,  J.  A.     16 

Carter,  W.  K.     80,  85,  90,  97 

Cecil,  Lord  Robert.     30 

Charles,  L.  B.     5,  12 

Churchill,  Hon.  Winston,  M.P.     67 

Clarke-WiUiams,    A.    E.      10 

Cobban,  A.  B.     81,  98 

Cole.  G.  D.  H.     25 

Condliffe,  J.  B.     8,   14,   18,  21,  23, 

33.  35.  47 
Coulton,  G.  G.     24,  62,  63 

Dalton,  Hugh.     5 
David,  I.     6,  7,  21 


Davies,  H   B.     5 

Davison,  E.  L.     18,  25,  40,  47,  69, 

75.  82,  87,  91,  92,  97 
Davy,  H.  N.     92,  98 
Denyer,  E.  H.     64,  77 
Dobb,  M.  H.     42,  47,  59,  75,  80,  89, 

92,97 
Donnell,  R.  H.     40,  47,  58,  62,  75 
DuffiU,  J.     84 
Dunning,  N.  G.     6,  18,  23,  34,  47 

Edwards,  E.  E.     35,  47 
Ellis,  C.  D.  B.     5,  7,  1 1 
Evans,  Ernest.     6 
Ezard,  B.  J.  B.     33,  47 

Fay,  C.  R.     8,  93 

Field,  D.  T.  C.     6,8,11,18,21,33, 

35.  37.  40.  48,  62,  75.  80,  82, 

92.  97 
Funnell,  C.  G.     42,  48 

Gage-Hall,  F.  A.     25 

Gallop,  C.     66 

Gauba,  K.     80,  86,  91,  97 

Gemmell,  J.  A.     64,  75,  82,  97 

Giles,  Peter,  Vice-Chancellor.     95 

Glover,  T.  R.     32 

Govindarajulu,  G.     91,  98 

Graham,  G.  M.     9,   56,   77 

Graham,  W.,  M.P.     36 

Grieg,  Commander.     57 

Griffiths,  P.  J.     35,  42,  48,  59,  75, 

90.  97 
Grose  Hodge,  G.  G.       12,  i8,  21,  23, 

24.  35.  40.  43.  44.  48.  52.  56.  58. 

70.  71.  75.  78,  80,  94,  95,  97 
Grose  Hodge,  H.     lo,  19 
Gurney,  R.  W.     86,  98 

Haig,  Earl.     86,  98 
Haines,  C.  M.     86,  98 
Haywood,  L.  G.     92,  98 
Haldane,  Viscount.     61 
Haldane,  T.  G.  N.     89,  97 
Harris,  W.  A.     83,  97 
Harrison,  G.  B.     9 
Heck-stall-Smith,  H.  M.     33,  48 
Henderson,  A.     35,  37,  42,  43,  48, 

52.56.57.64.  71.  75.  78.81,87, 

88,  92,  97 


99 


lOO 


INDEX 


Henderson,   H.   D.     54 

Henry,  H.R.H.  Prince     25,  27,  38, 

55-  57.  65 
Herbert,  E.     5,   10,  22 
Herman,  J.     25,  33,  35,  40,  48,  64, 

71.    76 
Hillson,  N.  H.     13 
Hodges,    Frank     15 
Hoole,  G.  P.     84,  97 
Hope.  J.  Fitzalan,  M.P.     73 
Horobin,  I.  M.     43,  48 
Hoste,  T.  B.      15 

Imam,  S.  S.     9,  22 

Jameson,  T.  B.     81,  98 
Jellicoe,  Viscount     95,  96 
Johnson,  G.  F.     5,  7 
Johnston,   W.   D.     35,   48,   56,   76, 

91,  98 
Jones,  G.  L.     6,  9,  21 
Jung,  M.  U.  S.     56,  77 

Kapur,  J.  L.     91,  98 

Kenworthy,      Commander     J.    M., 

M.P.     85 
Keynes,  J.  N.     95 
Khadye,  K.  M.     91 

Lassen,  E.  J.      65 

Lawley,  F.  E.     25,  37,  40,  48,  59.  76 

Le  Maitre,  A.  S.     6,  7,  11,  17,  18, 

23,  32,  40,  43,  48,  56,  64,  71, 

76,  78,  83,  91,  97 
Lewis,  T.  A.,  M.P.     6 

Macpherson,  I.     43,  48,  53,  76,  84, 

97 
McCoy,  J.  A.     56,  76 
McNair,  A.  D.     87,  92 
McNair,  W.  L.     5,  7,  19 
McTaggart,  J.  E.     5,  7,  52.  79.  95 
Malone,  Col.,  M.P.     14 
Marlow,  C.  C.     71,  77 
Marsh,  R.  W.     84,  98 
Martin,  B.  K.     71,  77 
Maskell,  E.  J.     18 
MeglaugJilin,  R.  B.     83,  98 
Milne,  J.  P.     9,  13,  16,  1 8 
Morgan,   S.   Cope     i6,   22,    25    28, 

35.  49.  58,  62.  74,  76,  88.  89 
Morris,  D.  35,  49,  70  77  83  98 
Morris  E.  H.  F.     25,  36,  40,  43,  49, 

52.59.71.76  78,83.85.88,92. 

95.  97 
Morris,  J.  W.     7,  8,  i6,  18.  23,  44, 

56.  60,  93 
Mountbatten,  Lord  Louis      35,   39, 

43.  49,  52.  65,  76 
Mozley.  Rev.  J.  K.     5,  19 


Newgass,  G.  A.     71,  77 
Nihill,  J.  H.  B.     6,  15,  45 
Norman,  Rev.  W.  H.     33 
North,  J.  F.  A.     9,  18,  25,  49,  87,  97 
Northam,  R.     42,  49,  83,  97 
Northumberland,  Duke  of     29 

Paish,  F.  W.     37,  42,  49,  56,  71,  76 

Palmer,  J.  B.     62 

Pattison-Muir,  Rev.  R.  M.     5 

Pedlar,  T.  S.     33,  35,  49 

Perraton,  L.  H.     13 

Perry,  R.  W.     35,  49 

PhiUips,  G.  G.     35,  49,  56.  77 

Prest,  C.  P.     33,  49 

Pritchard,  E.  A.  B.     42,  49 

Pryke,  W.  W.     40,  49 

Purcell,  V.  W.  W.  S.     33,  49,  85. 

90,  97 

Quiller-Couch,  Sir  Arthur     69 

Rahim,  M.  I.     25,  49 

Raikes,  H.  V.  A.     43,  50,  56.  77, 

83.  90,  97 
Ram,  V.  S.     42,  50,  56,  77.  83.  97 
Ramage,  C.  B.     66 
Ramsbottom,  W.  H.     37,  55 
Raven,  Rev.  C.  E.     89 
Reddaway,  W.  F.     6 
Reid,  D.  M.     6,  7,  9,  10.  13,  17,  18, 

23.  33.  38.  43.  52.  58.  66.  71. 

78,  92 
Richardson,  J.  H.     40,  50.  56,  59. 

77.  90,  97 
Roberts,  S.  C.     6,  45,  92 
Room,   L.   E.     43,   50,   58,   77,  83, 

85.  91,  97 
Roseveare.  E.  H.     89,  98 
Runciman,  W.  L.     40,  50 
Russel,  A.  W.     25,  50 

Sampson,   E.   W.     13.   35,   50,   54. 

64.  77 
Schofield.  A.     6,  16 
Searls,  T.  H.     89,  97 
Sells,  A.  L.     25,  33,  50 
Shakespeare,  G.  H.     11.  13,  17,  18. 

23,  35.   41.  43.  52.  71.  72 
Shard,  G.  G.     92 
Sharp,  G.   G.     14,   21,   24,   35,   50, 

57.  64,  71,  77,  78,  81,  85,  89, 

91,  98 

Shaw,  G.  R.  D.     89,  98 
Sheppard,  J.  T.     32,  86,  90 
Sieveking,  L.  de  G.     83,  91,  98 
Sinclair,   T.   A.     91,   98 
Slater,  R.  H.  L.     70,  77 
Smellie,    K.     25,   50 
Smillie,  Robert     20 


INDEX 


lOI 


Smith,  F.  E.     iS 

Smith,  J.  R.     91 

Snowman,  L.  V.     54,  58,  64,  77 

Somerset,  Raglan     6 

Steers,  D.  H.     40,  50,  64,  77 

Stevenson,  B.  F.      ri 

Strong,  P.  N.  \V.     9,  16,  25,  34,  42, 

50.  55.  77.  80,  83,  90,  98 
Swan,  T.     13,  33,  50.  53,  77 

Thakur,  V.  K.     9,  22 

Theobald,   G.   W.     33,   37,   40,   43, 

50,  52,  54.  63.  70,  71,  77,  78, 

79,  81,  87,  91,  92,  98 
Thompson,  A.  C.     6,  7,  8,  22,  41,  50 
Thompson,  C.  N.     7,  22 
Thornton,  D.  L.     40,  51 
Tracey,  C.  B.     33,  51 
Turberville,  G.     81,  90,  98 


Walker,  E.  R.  C.     18,  33,  51,  64,  77 

Warren,  D.  D.     35,  51 

Watson,  R.  E.     40,  43,  51,  55,  64, 

71,  77,  80,  83,  98 
Wedgewood,  Col.  J.  C,  M.P.     72 
Weekes,  Paymaster  Captain,   R.N. 

95 
Weekes,  Rev.  G.  A.     95 
Wild,  Sir  Ernest,   K.C.,  M.P.     60 
Wilson,  H.     84,  98 
Wilson,  H.  L.     40,  51,  84,  98 
Wilson,  R.  K.     42,  51 
Wiseman,  C.  L.     58,  87,  94 
Wright,  Harold     53 

Yeatman,  H.  M.     25,  40,  51 
Young,  Robert,  M.P.     46 

Zaidi.  B.  H.     91.  98 


PRINTED   BY 

W.    HEFFER    AND    SONS   LTD. 

CAMBRIDGE,    ENGLAND. 


SUSP 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

305  De  Neve  Drive  -  Parking  Lot  17  •  Box  951388 

LOS  ANGELES,  CALIFORNIA  90095-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library  from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


UCLA  YRL 

DUE:  f PrM 


UCLA  ACCESS  ? 

Interlibrary  Loans 

1 1 630  Young  Research 

BOX  951575 

Los  Angeles,  CA.  90095 


SERVICES      BL19 
Library 
1575 


ILL 


ifl3WV 


rri 


IFO/?^ 


NCElfj> 


RARYQc. 

P.I 


^WE■l]NIVER%. 


^lOSANCElfj^ 

O 


^OF-CAIIFO% 


.^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


%a3AiN(i-3WV^      "^^AavaaiH^      ^^^AavaaiH^"^ 


-^ILIBRARYOc 


>i. 


5  1  ir^^  SI  ir 


^^^^l•LIBRARY^^ 


AWEUNIVERy/A 


CXfT 


o 


>-  I 


^OAwmwi^      '<i'm^-m^ 


3  1158  01037  286 


IVER%       ^lOSANCElfj^. 


••^ 


en 


IVERS-//, 


:aryqc 


WJO'^ 


^lOSANCElf/^ 

o 


%3AINn-3yiV^ 


A^UIBR/ 


^«yojiiv3jo^^ 


nt 


*! 


■ER% 


ri 


O  CO 


UC  SOUTHERN  RCGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

III!  ||ll|||l|{|ll||ll|l|  i|l|l|||ll|l||| 


'^ji-  AA    000  409  605    3 


% 


LIFO/?^      ^OFCAIIFO/?^ 


ii 


laiH^    "^(^Advaaiiix^^ 


VER^//, 


%a3AINn-3V\V 


'^/5a3AIN(13V\V'' 


ll"^' 


<^s 


rr 


I  i ... 


